Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Seaham Harbour Dock Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Derwent Valley Water Board Bill,

Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Lowestoft Corporation Bill,

Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

DE VESCI'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time.

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of De Vesci's' Divorce Bill [Lords,] together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Mr. Morison.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SELECT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

Captain LOSEBY: 1.
asked the Pensions Minister if he will consider the advisability of issuing a tabulated statement showing the extent to which the Government have accepted or rejected the recommendations of the Select Committee on pensions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the extent to which the recommendations in the First Report were accepted by the Government was fully explained in the course of the Debate on the Ministry of Pensions Vote on 31st July last. Similarly the recommendations of the Second Report were dealt with in detail in a written statement circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 4th ultimo. In these circumstances it does not appear to my right hon. Friend that the expense of preparing and printing a tabulated statement would be justified.

Captain LOSEBY: 2.
asked the Pensions Minister if, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Pensions, the constant attendance allowance is now made to totally disabled soldiers wounded prior to 1914?

Major TRYON: The answer is in the negative. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the statement circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 4th March, he will see that the only additional benefit which it was found practicable to give to pensioners of former wars, as a result of the Select Committee's recommendation, was the grant of rank pensions to the widows of non-commissioned officers.

FUNERAL EXPENSES (EX-SOLDIERS).

Captain LOSEBY: 3.
asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that the grant of £7 10s. allowed by the Ministry to cover the cost of burying ex-soldiers who have died from causes attributable to military service is at the present time inadequate, and that cases have arisen in which soldiers who have died penniless and with- out friends have been buried in paupers' graves; and if he will consider the advisability of giving discretionary powers to local war pensions committees to make special grants in certain circumstances?

Major TRYON: I am glad to inform the hon. and gallant Member that arrangements are now being completed under which the funeral of a disabled ex-service man who dies from causes attributable to military service will in future be provided out of public funds and without expense to the relatives. The new procedure will be notified to local war pensions committees at an early date.

BLINDED SOLDIERS.

Mr. FOREMAN: 5.
asked the Pensions Minister if he will inform the House how many soldiers totally blinded in the War are now in receipt of pensions; whether there are any such blinded soldiers who are not reveiving pensions; if so, how many; if he will state the reasons for such non-receipt of pensions; whether any responsibility is accepted by his Ministry for keeping in touch with such blinded men, even if they do not receive pensions, to see that they do not fall on evil days; what is the maximum weekly pension for disablement by blindness; and if any investigations are made to ascertain if it is adequate?

Major TRYON: Approximately 1,300 soldiers discharged for total blind- ness have been pensioned under the Royal Warrant, and 110 have been refused pensions. The latter are men whose blindness arose from causes not connected with their military service or was due to their own serious negligence or misconduct. All men discharged for blindness are sent to "St. Dunstan's" (or in Scotland to Newington House, Edinburgh), where they are trained in new occupations, suitable to their condition, before returning to their homes. After their return the institutions mentioned continue to keep in touch with them by means of local representatives. The disablement pension for total blindness varies from 40s. to 60s., according to rank, together with a constant attendant allowance of 10s. to 20s. a week, a wife's allowance of 10s. a week, and additional allowances for children.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what is being done with the 110 odd blinded men who have not been pensioned; whether anything is being done for them, or whether they are being thrown on the rates?

Major TRYON: If they are at St. Dun- stan's they are provided for.

Mr. BILLING: What can they do after they leave St. Dunstan's?

Colonel LOWTHER: Is it a fact that no provision is made for blind men who have lost their sight in the service of their country?

Major TRYON: If they lose their sight in the service of their country they are provided for.

Mr. PALMER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a blind procession is now approaching London, men who have been blinded in the War, and have they hopes of a sympathetic reception at his hands?

Major TRYON: If they have been blinded in the service of their country during the War, they are, of course, entitled to pensions.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 4.
asked the Pensions Minister whether a considerable number of retired Regular naval and military medical men employed by the Minis—try are in receipt of pensions from £600 to £1,000 a year; whether demobilised temporary doctors whose sole source of income such an appointment frequently is are still in need of employment, and who, through the appointment of these pensioned officers, are frequently precluded from some of the better appointments; and whether pre-War rank is often considered as a sine qua non of medical efficiency?

Major TRYON: Of the twelve retired Regular naval and military medical men employed as full time medical officers in the Ministry, six are in receipt of pensions of £600 a year or more. This rep-resents little more than one per cent, of the total number of medical men employed, and it is not therefore the fact that the employment of these gentlemen has any appreciable effect on the prospects of demobilised temporary doctors. The medical officers of the Ministry are selected according to their qualifications for the particular work to be performed.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

EX-POLICEMEN (PENSIONS).

Major O'NEILL: 7.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any decision has yet been reached as to the increase of pensions to ex-policemen in Ireland?

Mr. ARCHDALE: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Government have yet come to a decision as to increased pensions for police pensioners in Ireland?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given by the Leader of the House to questions on this subject on Monday last.

Major O'NEILL: Can my right hon. Friend say definitely whether the Committee that is sitting on this question is considering the case of these Irish pensioners or not?

Mr. HENRY: Yes, that fact was stated by my right hon. Friend on Monday last.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great hard- ships these men have gone through in the service of their country and the fact that they are unable to get employment owing to their past service?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly, that is being considered.

EX-SERVICE MEN (HOUSING).

Major O'NEILL: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say under what Section of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act are the Local Government Board entitled to refuse the grant of cottages and allotments to ex-service men who apply for them on the ground that the necessity for a house does not exist?

Mr. HENRY: Section 4 of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, provides that the suitability of the applicant is to be decided by the Local Government Board, and as the Act is, primarily, one for the provision of proper housing accommodation of men who served in the War, the board cannot hold that an applicant whose housing conditions are good, is a fit and suitable person for whom further housing accommodation should be provided at the expense of the State.

Major O'NEILL: Does that mean that this Act is practically confined to a very small number of ex-service men in Ireland, and does not apply to a great many who wish to take advantage of it?

Mr. HENRY: No, I do not think that is a fair construction of the Act, but if my hon. and gallant Friend would give me any concrete case, I should be very pleased to bring it to the attention of the Local Government Board.

Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by "suitability of the applicant"? Is not every demobilised soldier a suitable applicant?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly, but obviously demobilised soldiers who already have proper housing accommodation would be to some extent on a different footing from people who have absolutely no accommodation at all.

Captain REDMOND: How many demobilised soldiers have proper accommodation?

Major O'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of allowing those people who may have proper housing accommodation to get allotments?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly, I will represent that to the Local Government Board.

MURDER OF ALDERMAN MAcCURTAIN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the finding of the coroner's jury on the murder of the late Lord Mayor of Cork, Alderman Thomas MacCurtain; whether the Government have proofs that this gentleman was murdered by a secret society; and, if so, why this evidence was not brought forward at the inquest on the deceased?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to his previous question on this subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether that reply given to my previous question was that nothing could be done because the case was sub judice? Now the inquest is over, may I have a reply as to why the evidence that this late Mr. MacCurtain was murdered by a secret society was not produced before the coroner's inquest?

Mr. HENRY: I regret that I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend any further information, as it is a matter affecting the public service.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then may I have an answer as to the public reasons why this evidence was not produced before the inquest?

Mr. HENRY: I regret I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend any further information.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why Lord French, after his interview with a representative of the "Daily Express," having given evidence to a newspaper correspondent in this country, did not give that information, which he gave to the "Daily Express" correspondent, in Court before the only tribunal that was capable of determining this matter?

Mr. HENRY: My only information on the subject is derived from the public Press, and from the same source I have observed that a controversy exists on the matter.

Mr. BILLING: Is it a fact that Lord French is not returning to Ireland?

Captain REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the persons indicted by the coroner's jury are to be brought to trial?

Mr. HENRY: I am awaiting the official report of the evidence before the coroner's jury, and I will consider the question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing this matter?

Mr. HENRY: That is not a matter for me.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May I ask whether it is in order for Ministers of the Crown who have been accused of wilful murderߞ

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. DEVLIN: Is it in order for hon. Members to prevent us getting at the truth on this question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members have had a very fair chance.

MILLTOWN MALBAY DISTURBANCES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a crowd of civilians, including women and children, was fired upon by soldiers and police in the streets of Milltown Malbay, County Clare, on the night of Wednesday, 14th April; whether three men were killed and a number of persons wounded; whether the crowd were celebrating the release of political prisoners on hunger strike from Mountjoy Prison and had lighted a bonfire; why the crowd was interfered with by the military and police; what warning was given before fire was opened; and whether there will be an inquiry into this episode?

Mr. HENRY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given to questions asked on this subject yesterday, and to the Debate on the Adjournment on Monday last.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Why was this crowd interfered with at all; why was any attempt made on this particular occasion to break this crowd up?

Mr. HENRY: I dealt with that question as fully as time permitted in the Debate on the Adjournment, and I answered two questions asked by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) also on the subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there going to be an inquiry into this whole episode?

Mr. PALMER: May I ask whether this occurred in Hull or in Ireland?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer?

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether an inquiry is going to take place, in view of the fact that most responsible people have declared that the whole information which has been supplied to the right hon. Gentleman, and which he has given to the House as the Government's answer, is a series of falsehoods?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Mr. DEVLIN: I repeat, a series of false-hoods, and I want to know whether an impartial inquiry will be set up to probe this thing to the bottom?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Mr. DEVLIN: What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of letting the country know the real truth?

Mr. HENRY: The inquest which is being held on these men has not yet concluded, and the whole matter will be considered by the Irish Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I inquire, with reference to a question asked by the hon. Member for Wrekin (Mr. Palmer), whether Members are here only to look after the interests of their own constituencies, or whether they are here to ask questions affecting the credit of the whole country? I would like your ruling in view of the sympathetic cheers.

POLICE FORCE (REPRESENTATIONS).

Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHS: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, according to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of The Constabulary and Police (Ireland Act, 1919, a draft of any Order proposed to be made by the Lord Lieutenant, in respect of pay, etc., of the Irish police forces, shall be submitted to the representative body or bodies representing any rank or ranks affected, and before making the Order the Lord Lieutenant shall consider any representations made by such body or bodies; and, if so, will he favourably consider the advisability of extending that privilege to the Irish Prisons Officers' Representative Council?

Mr. HENRY: In the case of orders under Section 4 of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1919, the procedure is as stated in the first part of the question. The suggested extension of that privilege to the Irish Prisons Officers' Representative Council is receiving the Lord Lieutenant's consideration.

MR. CATHAL O'SHANNON (ARREST).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mr. Cathal O'Shannon, editor of the " Watch- word of Labour," has been arrested; whether he is being detained in prison; and what charge, if any, has been preferred against him?

Mr. HENRY: This man is under arrest. He is being proceeded against under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, on the charge of unlawful assembly.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is that because he called a general strike?

Mr. HENRY: No, Sir, but because it, was considered that he was guilty of un- lawful assembly.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is this gentleman's offence that he is editor of the "Watch- word of Labour?" Is there any other charge against him?

Mr. HENRY: I have already said that the charge against him is that of unlawful assembly.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has he been tried for that offence?

Mr. HENRY: No, Sir.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he was not tried?

Mr. HENRY: We hope to try him as speedily as possible.

DAMAGED BY POLICE (THURLES).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings before Judge Moore at Thurles Sessions, on 7th April, in connection with compensation claims for damage done by the Thurles police on the night of 20th January, when they broke loose, fired into houses, smashed windows, and carried out other damages; and whether, in view of the judge's statement that the damage was admittedly done by the police and that the claims should be met by the Crown, the Government propose to take that course?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part of the question, the matter is under consideration.

COUNTY WICKLOW (POLICE PROTECTION).

Mr. TURTON: 16.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the police have been withdrawn from the barracks at Blessington, county Wicklow, and that a wide area is without any police protection whatever; and whether he will undertake to restore the police to their barracks at an early date?

Mr. HENRY: The Royal Irish Constabulary barracks at Blessington has been temporarily closed, and the police sta-
tioned there have been withdrawn. I am, unable to say when it will be possible to re-open this barrack.

Mr. TURTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during the Easter Recess, at Russborough I was entirely with- out police protection of any sort, and was in grave and imminent danger of being murdered?

Mr. DEVLIN: And you look as happy as ever.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that last Friday I handed in a question—

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman raise his point at the end of Questions?

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to close Dublin Castle?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

VOLUNTEER ARMY IN CRIMEA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Majesty's Government has sent a wireless telegraphic message to the Russian National Commissary for Foreign Affairs asking for special consideration to be shown to the remnants of the Volunteer Army in the Crimea; whether any similar appeal on behalf of the victims of the white terror in Hungary has been made; and whether an appeal has been, or will be, made to the German Government to protect the workmen in the Ruhr Valley from excesses by the Reichswehr?

The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Kellaway): With regard to the first part of the question, the information of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is substantially correct. As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend has already several times informed the House of the result of inquiries made in regard to the proceedings of the present Hungarian Government for the punishment of offences committed under the late Com-
munist régime, and of the counsels of moderation given to the Hungarian Government. With regard to the third part of the question, the answer is in the negative. Representations have, however, recently been made to the German Government as to the desirability of giving guarantees of adequate protection on their return to the workmen who took refuge in occupied territory during the recent disturbances in the Ruhr district.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to the last part of the answer, why only recently have these representations been made, and why were they not made at the time that the Prussian troops were executing every workman they could lay hands on?

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it because all the leaders of the Communist parties have already been executed?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not accept the imputations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations for peace are now proceeding between the Russian Soviet Government and the Governments of Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Poland; and whether His Majesty's Government is represented in these countries by diplomatic or military missions?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative as regards Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland. As regards Poland, it has not yet been decided between that country and Soviet Russia where such negotiations are to be held. The answer to the second part is that His Majesty's Government is represented in Finland and Poland by regular diplomatic missions, and in Latvia and Lithuania by a Com-missioner with diplomatic functions.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Are these diplomatic representatives of His Majesty watching events for us, or are they taking any part at all in these negotiations?

Mr. KELLAWAY: They are watching events. That is what they are out there for.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: But are we taking part through our representatives in these very important negotiations?

REAR-ADMIRAL KEMP.

Viscount CURZON: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether Rear-Admiral T. W. Kemp was recently mentioned in despatches for his services in North Russia; whether the services of military officers in this area similarly mentioned have been recognised very fully; and, if so, whether it is proposed to recognise the services of Admiral Kemp?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Rear-Admiral Kemp was mentioned in General Poole's despatches, and his war services have been recognised by the following awards:—

C.B. (Military)
…
3rd June, 1917.


C.M.G
…
3rd June, 1918.

The services of military officers in this area were recognised on the same scale as that which prevailed in other theatres of war.

Sir E. CARSON: Is it not very much to be deprecated asking for honours and recognition through the medium of this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend, but I understood that the object of this question was to find out whether this particular army was treated in the same way as the others.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT (POLICY OF ALLIES).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Russian Soviet Government has expressed its willingness to receive the missions proposed to be sent by the Council of the League of Nations and by the International Labour Section of the League of Nations; and whether it is still the policy of the Allies to despatch these missions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part of the question the hon. Member is doubtless aware that the Council of the League of Nations made the proposal to despatch a mission of inquiry to Russia at the instance of the Supreme Council.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Was not the reason for this refusal the peculiarity of the conditions we put forward which were considered detrimental and insulting by the Soviet Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information to that effect: perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman has?

UNITED STATES AND SOVIET RUSSIA.

Mr. LUNN: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government of the United States has refused to be associated with the work of the proposed Commission of Inquiry into conditions in Soviet Russia to be sent by the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the United States associated in any way with the League of Nations?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is there a League of Nations?

GENERAL DENIKIN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked whether General Denikin is being entertained in England at the expense of the British taxpayer; and, if so, under what Vote this charge will be found?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

PALESTINE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Emir Feisul, the self-appointed King of Syria and Palestine, intends to present himself before the Conference at San Remo and claim a mandate for the territories in question; and whether he is aware of the determination of the people of this country that Jerusalem and Palestine shall not, like Constantinople, be allowed to remain under non-Christian rule, but shall be administered by this country whether by mandate of the League of Nations or by agreement with France and Italy?

Mr. KELLAWAY: An invitation has been extended to the Emir Feisul to appear before the Peace Conference, and
state his claims in person. Until he does so, it is impossible to say what those claims may be. The future of Jerusalem and Palestine is at present under consideration by the Peace Conference, and the House may rest assured that the views of the people of this country are adequately represented by the British Delegation.

Major Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the statement in the question that the Emir Feisul was self-appointed King of Syria is not accurate, and that he was appointed by a delegation representing all the people in the territory in question; and, further, is he aware that the Emir Feisul is a staunch ally, and during the War has never taken up an anti-Christian attitude?

Mr. KELLAWAY: My answer to that is that I do not accept the description given in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the terms of the Treaty of Peace, the total cost of the Army of Occupation in Germany is to be paid for by that country; whether he is aware that for the United States Government the cost of the Army of Occupation commences from the embarkation of troops, stores, and material in America, and for the French Government in a distance of 400 kilometres from the points of occupation; whether the cost to this country commences when troops or stores are embarked at a British port; and, if so, why are we paying to Belgium heavy sums for the transport of our troops through Belgian territory?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir; Germany is to pay, in the form of a commuted rate, the full cost of the Army of Occupation, including cost of trans-port, not only from the British port of embarkation, but also for a railway journey of an average distance in this country. Payments to the United States and French Governments are to be based on a similar principle. When the troops
travel through Belgium, the transport charges are paid by the British Government in the first instance, but they are included in the commuted rate payable by Germany.

Brigadier-General CROFT: How much, up to date, has been paid by Germany for this Army of Occupation?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am unable to answer.

Mr. ROSE: Has any of it been collected?

Mr. LUNN: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will lay before the League of Nations proposals for an agreement to prohibit the use of black troops in Europe, whether for garrison or other duties?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Is there any reason for casting this slur upon brave people who are British subjects, and who have fought for this country? Is this what the League of Nations is for?

Mr. LUNN: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has made representations to the French Government against the use of black troops in Europe, and especially in the occupied territories of Germany; and what further action it is proposed to take in the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any chance of His Majesty's Government making any protest against this outrage?

Mr. STANTON: You are an outrage here—three of you are " Bolshies"!

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is part of the duty of the Government, or this House, to judge the action of another Government.

REPARATION COMMISSION.

25 Commander Viscount CURZON: asked the Prime Minister how much reparation has so far been made by
Germany to the Allies under the Peace Treaty?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Considerable deliveries have been received in kind—e.g., ships, coal, etc.—but I am not yet in a position to state their values in money. The only cash received up to the present is that required for meeting the current expenses of the Commission.

Viscount CURZON: Is there any reason to think that there is any weakening on the part of the Allies on this question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I know of none.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether in budgeting for this year the right hon. Gentleman made any provision for moneys coming from Germany?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said that I have taken no credit for any moneys on account of reparation from Germany.

Mr. BILLING: Has any date been given to Germany for making payments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman will consult the Treaty he will find a full answer to his question.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: Is the cost of the Army of Occupation included in the Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have included the amount to be expended this year on the Army of Occupation, and such recoveries as we may expect to receive during the year in respect of the Army of Occupation.

Viscount CURZON: Is it the intention of the Government to issue any sort of balance sheet from time to time showing what payments have been made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When repayments are made, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman is probably aware, the date and conditions must be settled by the Reparation Commission. This is not a British Government Department: it is an Inter-Allied authority for which I cannot undertake to answer as I would be able to answer for an ordinary British Government Department in my charge. But I shall be glad to give the House, from time to time, such information as is available.

Colonel LOWTHER: Is there any reason to suppose that, because Germany can do little or nothing at the present time, that when matters settle down she will not be able to pay?

Mr CHAMBERLAIN: I see no reason to suppose that she will not be able to pay substantial contributions when she has settled down.

Major ENTWISTLE: 48.
asked if the Reparation Commission appointed under Article 233 has notified the German Government the amount of damage for which compensation is to be made by Germany; what is the extent of that Government's obligations; if due facilities have been allowed to the Germans to give evidence; and what is the composition of the Commission?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the latest information in the possession of His Majesty's Government, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second and third parts do not therefore arise. The composition of the Commission is as follows:—

France.—M. Poincaré (Chairman), M. Mauclerc.
Britain.—Sir John Bradbury, G.C.B., Sir Hugh Levick, K.B.E.
Italy.—Signor Bertolini, Signor d'Amelio.
Belgium.—M. Theunis, M. Bemel- mans.
Japan.—M. Mori, M. Sekiba.
U.S.A. (unofficial representatives).—Mr. Rathbone (recently succeeded by Mr. B. W. Boyden), Mr. Logan.

RUHR DISTRICT (GERMAN TROOPS).

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is represented in the Ruhr district by military missions or members of diplomatic or consular services; and, if so, whether any report has been received as to the alleged atrocities and slaughter carried out by the German Government's troops against the workers in the Ruhr?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No report as to the alleged atrocities committed by German troops has been received from His Majesty's Consul- General at Cologne, who, pending the definitive demarcation of consular districts in Germany, has been asked to report for the Ruhr district.
His Majesty's Government have at present no official representatives in the district.

WAR CRIMINALS.

Viscount CURZON: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether any of the war criminals on the lists presented to Germany are now in the hands of Great Britain or the Allies; if so, what action is contemplated with regard to them; and whether any statement can be made as to whether, in all the circumstances, the Allies now propose to take any further steps for the surrender and trial of war criminals at present in Germany or elsewhere?

Sir J. BUTCHER: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether the negotiations with Germany as to the trial before the Leipzig courts of German war criminals has nearly reached a conclusion; and whether he will, in concert with France, inform the German Government that until satisfactory arrangements have been made for the trial of all the German war criminals, no facilities will be given for the importation of food stuffs and raw materials into Germany?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister, whether the trial has already taken place at Leipzig of any Germans accused of cruelty to British prisoners of war; if not, when it is anticipated that the first trial will take place; who will be tried; what arrangements have been made for the attendance and summoning of English witnesses; whether he can state if any and, if so, how many of the accused persons are in custody pending trial; and, if not, what precautions have been taken to prevent those whose names are on the list of accused persons supplied to Germany by the Allies from evading trial by leaving the country?

Colonel LOWTHER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Supreme Council have decided not to employ force in order to extradite the ex-Kaiser, whether all war criminals who dare not face a court of justice will be equally able to find sanctuary in Holland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything in regard to the negotiations on this subject to previous answers, but I understand that the subect will be discussed and, I hope, disposed of at the Conference
at San Remo. There are some prisoners in our hands who are in the list of those accused as war criminals, and none of them have been released.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether any pressure is being brought to bear upon the German Government to prevent their persistent evasion of Treaty obligations by Germany and to bring these persons speedily to trial?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I said in my answer that the subject is now being discussed at San Remo, and I do not think that anything can be said until that Conference is over.

Colonel LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are being taken to prevent ordinary War criminals taking sanctuary in Holland in view of the fact that the Hohenzollerns have taken refuge there?

Mr. BILLING: Will the Government take steps to see that those men do not escape, and will the German Government be held responsible for their appearance at the trial?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. The House is aware—I think despatches were published—as to what has taken place in regard to this subject. There has been no change except that negotiations are proceeding. But, as I have said, the subject is one that will be discussed at San Remo.

Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Is there to be one law for the Hohenzollerns and another for the ordinary War criminal?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course there is!

Mr. BONAR LAW: Action in respect to the Hohenzollerns does not depend upon this Government, but upon the Dutch Government.

Colonel LOWTHER: Is it not the fact that the Hohenzollerns and the head of the Hohenzollerns have taken sanctuary in Holland; will the same sanctuary be accorded to any ordinary War criminal who does not believe in facing his trial?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must ask that question of the Dutch Government.

STEAM TRAWLERS.

Major ENTWISTLE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if any steam trawlers have been yet ceded to the Allied and Associated Governments under Section 1, Annex III., Part VIII., of the Peace Treaty; to what nations have they been allotted; and how is the Government disposing of them?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the question of the steam trawlers which are to be delivered by Germany to the Allied and Associated Governments under the Peace Treaty is at present under the consideration of the Reparation Commission. No vessels of the type referred to have yet been delivered by Germany.

WAR PLANES.

Colonel LOWTHER: 52.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the statement made on Thursday last by the Secretary of State for War to the effect that over 12,000 war planes were still in the possession of the Germans, whether any date has been specified for their surrender; and, if so, what date and how many?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The points raised are already answered, so far as I am in a position to answer them, by the statement which I made on the 15th instant in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (South) and in my supplementary answers on that occasion. I am not in a position to add anything further.

Colonel LOWTHER: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what excuse is put forward by the German Government for the non-delivery of over 12,000 war planes

Mr. BILLING: Is it a fact that there are still 12,000 war planes in Germany?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; but the aerial material is being handed over and the question of its destination is in the hands of the Allied Council.

Colonel LOWTHER: Is not all this paraphernalia of war, and is there anything so easy to hand over as war planes?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They are being handed over and their destruction is now being taken in hand.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Why do you want to destroy them?

SURRENDER OF COAL TO FRANCE.

Colonel LOWTHER: 53.
asked, in view of the vital necessity of coal to France, whether Germany has fulfilled her pledges in regard to the surrender of coal; if not, to what degree she has defaulted; and what steps the Allied Governments are taking to enforce the observance' of the Peace Treaty in this respect?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Dulwich yesterday.

ST. MARY'S SCHOOL, ROMNEY MARSH.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the sum of £40, a part of the balance used in building St. Mary's School, Romney Marsh, Kent, and which by deed of the 30th August, 1871, was conveyed to the rector and churchwardens in trust for a school, has been used for the erection of a clock on St. Mary's Church; and whether he will make inquiry as to the legality of the money being used for this purpose?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Board received a communication on this subject recently, but as the writer of the letter was unwilling that it should be sent to the managers of the school for their observations, the Board did not feel able to pursue the matter. The letter stated that the money in question was collected by public subscription. If this is so, the Board have no jurisdiction and no power to direct that an inquiry should be held on the subject.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Colonel YATE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education what steps are being taken to create facilities for the training of teachers of physical training
in schools; and how many counties and county boroughs have appointed organisers of physical training?

Mr. FISHER: As the answer is a long one, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:—

The Board have made arrangements with the Local Education Authority and managers for a one-year's course of training for men teachers to be given at the Sheffield Training College, especially for those who intend to take up work as organisers of physical training. At Reading University College a course of the same duration is conducted for certificated women teachers, mainly with a view to work in continuation schools. The Board understand that proposals for providing facilities for the teachers of physical training are being formulated by other authorities.

Summer courses for this purpose, generally of a month's duration, are organised by the Educational Handwork Association at Scarborough and St. Anne's, and by the Local Education Authorities of the West Riding and Glamorgan at Ilkley and Barry, respectively; there are other courses in subjects related to physical training at Bingley and Bangor. All these classes are aided by the Board; and maintenance and travelling allowances are offered by the Board to some 300 teachers towards the cost of attending the summer courses at Scarborough, Ilkley and Barry. Several physical training colleges for women under private management provide a two or three- years' course for the training of expert women teachers of physical exercises.

The following table shows the number of local education authorities who have appointed organisers of physical training up to date:



England.
Wales.
Total.


Counties
17
3
20


County Boroughs
29
3
32


Boroughs
6
—
6


Urban Districts
2
3
5



54
9
63

MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 24.
asked the Home Secretary when the General Report, with Statistics, for Mines and Quarries will be published?

Mr. SHORTT: I am unable to say at present. The Report will appear in three parts as usual. In normal circumstances Part I, containing the divisional statistics and reports, ought to be ready for publication in June, and Parts II and III, containing respectively the Report of the Chief Inspector and the statistics of output, should be issued in the summer I fear, however, that this year the Report may be delayed owing to the absence through serious illness of the Chief Inspector.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would my right hon. Friend give instructions to inspectors in future to prepare their reports a little sooner?

FRANCE AND BELGIUM.

Mr. CAPE: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether a military alliance has recently been formed or is now being negotiated between the Governments of France and Belgium, and whether His Majesty's Government has pointed out to these Governments the effect that separate agreements of this nature must have upon the stability of the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give information about negotiations which may or may not be going on between two foreign Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

CARLISLE DISTRICT.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any resolutions from clubs in the district of Carlisle calling upon the Government to take whatever steps are necessary for the cancellation of the Order issued by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), dated 11th February, 1920; and whether he can state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last to my hon. and gallant
Friend the Member for Cumberland N., to which I have nothing to add.

Captain TERRELL: May I inquire whether the restrictions in the Carlisle area are serving any useful purpose at all—are they not the first step to " Pussy -footism"?

Colonel LOWTHER: Why should Carlisle be the jumping-off place for "Pussy-footism "?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought " Pussy-footism—was not being able to get anything to drink. That is not the case in Carlisle.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where Pussyfoot is just now?

Major LOWTHER: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of the Order made by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), Carlisle, dated 12th February, 1920; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of doing so, in view of the fact that the Order purports to override the statutory powers of justices to grant licences?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the powers which are conferred upon the Board under the Act of 1915, there seems to be no reason for specially referring the question to the Law Officers for their opinion, but the Attorney-General has already stated that the Central Control Board have been advised that the making of the Order is within their powers.

Mr. A. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this Board is going to be abolished?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this question.

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether an Order was issued by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), dated 12th February, under which it arrogates to itself the right to forbid the supply of intoxicating liquor to clubs formed in the Carlisle area after that date, thus overriding the Statute Law; and, if so, will he take immediate steps to have this Order cancelled?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS(Mr. James Hope): A reply to a similar question has been already given by the Leader of the House.

Mr. GRUNDY: 66.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how many members of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) were present at the meeting when the Order was made of the 2nd February last prohibiting the formation of any clubs in Carlisle without the sanction of the Board?

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 67.
hadgiven notice of a similar question.

Mr. HOPE: I can only repeat that I have nothing to add to the replies that have been given to previous questions on this subject.

Mr. GRUNDY: But will the right hon. Gentleman state whether there was more than one member present at that meeting?

Mr. HOPE: I do not know. The Central Control Board are under no obligation to publish minutes of their meetings.

BLIND (DEPUTATION).

Mr. WATERSON: 35.
asked the Prime Minister if it is his intention personally to interview the deputation of the blind on the 26th or 27th of this month?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister has informed the deputation that if he is in London when they arrive he will be pleased to receive them, and in the event of his being still away he suggested that I should receive them on his behalf.

Mr. BILLING: Have any steps been taken by the Government to provide any sort of accommodation for these people on their arrival; or would the right hon. Gentleman speak to one of his Departments?

EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.

Sir E. CARSON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill will be taken

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible at present to name a definite date.

Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend if the Government really means to go on with this Bill; and is he aware of the anxiety of the teachers in Ireland at the repeated delay in bringing this matter before the House, having regard to the many promises that have been made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware how pressing business is; there has been no change in the intentions of the Government.

REFUGEES (GOVERNMENT MAINTENANCE).

Sir J. D. REES: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is paying for the maintenance of refugees from Allied and enemy countries in Vienna, Constantinople, Bakonba, and elsewhere; if so, whether it is proposed to continue to make any grants on this account and for what period?

Mr. BONAR LAW: A sum of £50,000 has been made over from the final contribution to General Denikin to the British Committee of the Russian Red Cross for the relief of refugees at Constantinople, Lemnos, and elsewhere. His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople has been authorised to expend £10,000 to cover special cases arising out of the large exodus of refugees from South Russia. So far as I am aware there are no refugees in Vienna at the present time. With regard to the second part of the question, I am unable to make any definite statement at the present time, but I hope His Majesty's Government will not be required to grant further funds for the relief of refugees.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any restriction on the use of these funds and against paying the salaries of Denikin's ex-officers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say that offhand. But I am sure the money is being used for the purposes of that relief for which it was allocated.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: When this £50,000 is exhausted will these wretched people be left to starve? Will not the fact that they have been misled by our deliberate policy be taken into
account? What about the unfortunate women and children?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I said that I hoped the British Government would not be called upon to pay more. We have done a good deal in providing the ships.

Other HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is a large number of questions on the Paper, and hon. Members have been exercising very freely their right to put supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTION ACTS.

SHOPS AND BUSINESS PREMISES.

Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will bring in legislation at an early date to set up arbitration courts to deal with the cases of tenants of shop and business premises who may be given notice to quit owing to the premises being sold or let at a higher rental over their heads; and whether he is aware that in many such cases it is impossible for the tenant concerned to find other premises or to so raise his sale prices as to recoup himself for a largely increased rental?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject, which is a very complicated one, is being considered by the Government, but I am not in a position to make any statement.

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many cases of multiple shopkeepers buying up premises, and the grievance is that those displaced cannot obtain any other premises?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I am aware of it. I have seen several deputations, but it is difficult to find a remedy. The question is being considered.

ALTERNATIVE VOTE.

Mr. WATERSON: 40.
asked whether, in view of the recent return of candidates to Parliament on a minority vote, he proposes to introduce legislation establishing the alternative vote?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 31st ultimo to the hon. and gallant Mem-
ber for Kincardine and Western, to which I have nothing to add.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Are we to understand that the Government approve of the principle of the return of Members by means of the minority vote?

PASSPORT SYSTEM.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether responsibility for the administration of the passport system is now divided between the Home Office and a branch of the Military Intelligence Department of the War Office; how many officers are employed in this branch, and at what annual cost; and whether this arrangement, which was instituted for military purposes during the War, will now be brought to an end, so that passports may be dealt with entirely by the Home Office?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The issue of British passports and the administration of the passport system is under the control of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who consults other Departments in cases where he thinks advisable. The arrangement during the War of a system of military permits controlled by the War Office acting in co-operation with the Home Office, was brought to an end in October last; and military permits are now only required in the case of persons wishing to enter areas in British military occupation.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is there not still a large staff at the War Office in the Military Intelligence Department engaged in this work?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not, but I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

HALTON CAMP EAST TRAINING SCHOOL.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether there are over 1,000 youths at the Royal Air Force school of technical training at Halton Camp East who are not now receiving any regular technical training or are employed on any Royal Air Force
work; and whether it would be in the interests of national economy, as well as in the interest of the youths themselves, if those who desired release and had civil employment waiting for them could be discharged herewith?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question which should in the ordinary course have been addressed to me. The total strength of boys at this camp is 2,610, of whom 2,148 are in the workshops; 244 are not receiving workshop training, but are, by their own choice, being given instruction in the duties of aircraft hands, whilst the balance of 218 are employed on duties outside workshops; are in hospital or in isolation; awaiting discharge on medical or compassionate grounds; or awaiting posting. All boys receive drill, disciplinary and educational instruction.
I am not prepared to accept the suggestion contained in the second part of the question. Discharge cannot be allowed, except on sufficient grounds, otherwise opportunity would be given for boys to obtain a good and expensive education provided by the Government without any return accruing to the State.

COST OF LIVING.

Colonel NEWMAN: 46.
asked whether comparisons of the present cost of living with the period immediately preceding the War are drawn up and published at stated intervals by the Labour Ministry; whether the accuracy of the results so arrived at have been gravely questioned; and whether, in view of the fact that the announcement of a rise in the cost of living by the Ministry of Labour is automatically followed by a rise in the wages paid to organised labour, he will have the whole question of comparison in food prices investigated by a select committee of experts?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply to this question. The average percentage increase in the cost of maintaining unchanged the pre-War standard of living among working-class families is calculated each month and published in the Labour Gazette. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend an extract from the Labour Gazette for March last which explains in detail the methods employed
in making this calculation. I am aware that it has been asserted, on the one hand, that the actual increase is less, and on the other hand, that it is greater, than the published percentage; but the evidence adduced has, I am advised, generally been fragmentary, and no independent statistics have been compiled of a sufficiently comprehensive character to provide a justification for disputing the official calculations. As regards the suggestion that a select committee should investigate the comparison of food prices, my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt be aware that the statistics compiled by the Ministry of Labour were the subject of an investigation in 1918 by Lord Summer's Committee on the Cost of Living, who reported that there was every reason to suppose that they were accurate and adequate for their purpose.

MILITARY SERVICE (CIVIL LIABILITIES) DEPARTMENT.

Mr. FOREMAN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department declines to consider all appeals for aid which are not made within one year of demobilisation; if so, whether he will state the reasons actuating the policy; whether he can give any indication of the number of refusals of aid to date on that account; and whether he will represent to the Department the hardships of this policy on men who are really made to suffer through their merit in trying to struggle as long as possible without soliciting help from the State, in preference to the easier method of applying for money grants immediately on leaving the Army?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to reply to this question. Except so far as disabled men are concerned, it is the fact that, under the regulations framed, applications from discharged and demobilised men must be made within a year of the date of demobilisation, except that a certain latitude has been allowed to men discharged or demobilised prior to 11th November, 1918. So far as the special extensions given to disabled men are concerned, these were set out fully in the reply given by my predecessor to a question asked in this House on 12th February by the hon. and gallant Member
for Norfolk, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend.
I have, of course, the greatest sympathy with men who attempt to meet the difficulties of the resettlement period out of their own resources. I gather that on the whole the rule has not pressed harshly in the very great majority of cases. It would be impossible to give the actual number of cases in which grants have been refused, but if it appears as a result of experience that hardship is being caused by the operation of the rule, I will look into it afresh.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Does that mean that there is a discretion in the matter which will be exercised on proper occasions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know, but I will look into it, and if I require fresh authority I will apply for it.

POLAND AND LITHUANIA (FRONTIER).

Mr. LAMBERT: 55.
asked what progress has been made and when the frontier will be delimitated between Poland and Lithuania, and by whom such delimitation will be made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No steps have as yet been taken to make a definite delimitation of the frontier between Poland and Lithuania. The present frontier is a provisional one laid down by the Supreme Council in December last. The question will doubtless form the subject of direct negotiations between the countries concerned.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are these frontiers to be approved by the Allied Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The preliminary frontier was laid down by the Supreme Council. Undoubtedly their assent would have to be obtained.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Has Poland refused to obey the decisions of the Supreme Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. Poland denies that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND.

INISTERIAL SALARIES.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is a general desire among Scottish
representatives that the post of Secretary for Scotland should be raised to the status of a Secretaryship of State and that the salary attached thereto should be increased to the level of such secretaryship; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. I believe also that the view of the Scottish Members represents the general feeling in Scotland, but I do not think that it would be possible to make the suggested change in this office without dealing, at the same time, with some other Cabinet offices, and the Government cannot see their way, at present, to introduce legislation on this subject.

Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to the appointment of a Committee of unofficial Members to consider the whole question of Ministerial salaries in relation to Scotland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If I thought there was any general feeling in the House in favour of that course, I should be glad to adopt it, but I do not think there is.

Captain REDMOND: Is it the view of Scottish Members generally that an Englishman should be appointed Secretary for Scotland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not heard that view expressed.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is there any reason why this matter should not be dealt with separately in a short Bill which could easily go through?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend is a Scottish Member. He is very sanguine, but he does not show in this the usual caution of his race.

Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to prevent these serious discrepancies between the salaries of various Ministers by reverting to the pooling system?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, be aware that when the pooling system was in force, it was subjected to a good deal of criticism.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

DEMONSTRATION (POLICE ACTION).

Mr. WATERSON: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order a public inquiry into the action of the police on the occasion of the demonstration of ex-service men on 1st March last?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): No, Sir. This matter was discussed on the Motion for Adjournment on the 2nd March, and I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made then, and to my replies to questions on the same day and on the 11th March.

GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS (DISCHARGES).

Captain BOWYER: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the number of ex-service men now out of employment and the inadequacy of the steps taken to find employment for them, he will undertake that no ex-service man shall be discharged from any Government factory or dockyard until he has definite employment to go to?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid it is not possible to give the undertaking suggested by the hon. Member. At the same time, every endeavour is made to postpone the discharge of ex-service men from Government factories and dockyards as long as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

WAR WIDOWS.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take, in view of the great anxiety of many war widows regarding certain recommendations of the Income Tax Committee, as to whether they come under the same heading as single persons whose taxable income starts at £150 instead of the much higher figure of husband and wife; and whether special relief will be given to those widows who have one or more sons returned from the War who, by reason of wounds or disablement, are unable to maintain themselves and are being wholly or partly maintained by the widowed mother?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the Budget proposals the increased exemption limit and abatement allowances in the case of a married couple are not applicable either to a widower or a widow. A deduction of £25 from the taxpayer's assessable income will be made in respect of any relative maintained by him, who is incapacitated by infirmity from maintaining himself and whose income from all sources does not exceed £25 a year.

GERMAN NATIONAL INCOME.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total national income in Great Britain and Germany, respectively, is taken, or proposed to be taken, by the State in the form of Income Tax and Super-tax and their equivalents?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not acquainted with any trustworthy estimates of the total national income of either country at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of the continual assurances from the Government that Germany is to be made to pay, are steps being taken to get this fundamental comparison?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the comparison is fundamental for the purpose of making Germany pay. The assessment of her capacity to pay is a matter remitted by the Treaty to the Reparation Commission.

Mr. BILLING: What information can we have of Germany's capacity to pay unless we take some steps to find out what her national resources are?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of a question like that.

CIVIL SERVICE (AFRICA).

Earl WINTERTON: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state how much the cost of living has increased since 1914 for civil servants in the Gold Coast and Nigeria, taking into account the fact that a large part of their equipment and provisions is purchased at home; whether, in the case of the Gold Coast, officers have to pay heavy Customs duties on such provisions; whether any increases of pay have been given to the officers of these services since 1914; and, if so, at what dates?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The cost of living for civil servants in the Gold Coast and Nigeria has largely increased since 1914; but it is hardly possible to give a definite figure, as conditions vary largely, not only in different colonies, but in different stations in the same colony. In the Gold Coast provisions are subject to import duties of 12½ per cent, ad valorem. War bonuses have been granted to West African officers on various dates, beginning on 1st October, 1916, for some classes, and on 1st January, 1917, for all classes, and the Secretary of State hopes shortly to be able to approve a new scale of salaries giving large permanent increases to all grades.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists among these branches of the Civil Service which is held to be damaging to our prestige in Africa, and that these civil servants have not the means of bringing pressure to bear on this House which civil servants in this country have? Will he therefore give the subject more careful consideration than has been given hitherto?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I can assure my Noble Friend that the Secretary of State is not only aware of these matters but is very anxious to deal with the question and has been for many months. The negotiations have involved correspondence with the different Governments as to their proposals, and we hope that this process which has been going on for months will very soon reach its conclusion, and I trust then we shall be able to satisfy my Noble Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

DISPOSAL BOARD (COLONEL SPURRIER).

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what would be the constitution of any inquiry he might agree to institute into cases of alleged incompetency or malpractices in his Department where a prima facie case for inquiry is made out?

Mr. HOPE: If I am satisfied of the need of an inquiry I will consider what form such inquiry shall take

Sir R. COOPER: Is it not necessary, when a primâ facie case is submitted, to assure hon. Members of this House that it will receive impartial considerations.

Mr. HOPE: I have already done that. I have yet to have a primâ facie case submitted to me.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Was not a primâ facie case in regard to Mr. Hankinson submitted within the last 24 hours?

Mr. HOPE: I have received a communication from the hon. and gallant Member this morning, but have not yet had time to determine whether it constitutes a primâ facie case or not.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether Colonel Spurrier, the chief officer of the Motor Transport Disposals Board of the Ministry of Munitions, is any relation to Mr. Arthur Spurrier, director of Leyland Motors, Limited, Mr. Henry Spurrier, chairman of Leyland Motors, Limited, and of Mr. Henry Spurrier, junior, a director of Leyland Motors, Limited; and, if so, what is the degree of relationship?

Mr. HOPE: I understand that a Private Notice question on the subject matter underlying this question has been addressed to the Leader of the House, who will make a statement on the matter.

Major NALL: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the charges and suggestions made in this House and elsewhere against Colonel Spurrier, Controller of Motor Transport Vehicles under the Ministry of Munitions Disposal Board, and if he can make any statement on the subject?

Brigadier-General CROFT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask if it is to be regarded as the custom in future, when a question has been on the Paper some days, that it should not be answered by the Minister responsible for the Department, and that it should give way to a Private Notice question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I suppose the matter is thought to be of such importance that it ought to be put into the hands of the
Leader of the House. That is the only explanation I can suggest.

Sir R. COOPER: May I ask if it is the custom of this House for a question, whether it be put to the Leader of the House or to the head of a Department, to be superseded by a Private Notice question?

Major NALL: May I say that I had not seen and was not aware of the question referred to, or I should not have given this Private Notice?

Mr. BONAR LAW: When the House hears the answer it will be understood why I have been willing to give the answer.
The answer to this question is in the affirmative. Colonel Spurrier is Controller of Motor Transport Vehicles under the Disposal Board, but he cannot conclude sales on their behalf of the value of over £5,000 on his own authority, and acts under the instructions of Mr. Philip Dawson, M. Inst. C.E., of Messrs. Kincaid, Waller, Manville and Dawson, Consulting Engineers. Mr. Dawson is a member of the Disposal Board, and is responsible to that Board and to the Minister of Munitions. With regard to the sale of the St. Omer Dump, Colonel Spurrier has two brothers, who are directors of Leyland Motors, Limited, but he has, himself, no interest in the firm. I am informed by the Minister of Munitions that it was not on the suggestion of Colonel Spurrier, but by the direct instructions of the Minister himself, that Messrs. Leyland were asked to tender. I think that it is very unfair that suggestions which have no foundation should be made which reflect upon the honour of public servants like Colonel Spurrier, who has rendered very valuable public service.

Brigadier-General CROFT: May I ask whether the Cabinet approves of any gentleman remaining in any Government Department, in an important position with regard to sales or great contracts, who is related to the principals of the firms with whom those contracts are made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is quite obvious, I hope, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as to other hon. Members, that this kind of business cannot be done by ordinary civil servants. You must employ people who are acquainted with the trade.
All that the Ministry or the Government can do is to make certain that no improper use is made of their position. In this case it was especially at the request of the Minister of Munitions, who thought his subordinate had been very unfairly treated, that I looked into the question, and I am satisfied that he had nothing whatever to do with the sale to Messrs. Lever.

Captain TERRELL: Is it not a fact that Colonel Spurrier rendered great services to the nation during the War and also has been of enormous value to the Ministry of Munitions?

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that Colonel Spurrier entered into all these negotiations and that these contracts were in close competition with other most important industries in this country, including Messrs. Lever, and that being the fact, should not Colonel Spurrier have taken no part in the proceedings but resigned before any such negotiations were entered into?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is misinformed as to the facts. The Minister of Munitions tells me it was Mr. Dawson who alone had the responsibility of these sales. He told me also that it was because he was satisfied that he ought to have a larger sum than was offered by Messrs. Lever that he himself, on his own initiative, gave instructions to Mr. Leyland to be invited to tender.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that Colonel Spurrier has been negotiating for the sale of vast numbers of motor lorries?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer I have given applies to that, surely. He has not power to make sales above £5,000. In addition to that you cannot possibly get a proper price for materials of this kind unless you employ men who are acquainted with the trade, and it is impossible to avoid their having some kind of connection.

Sir R. COOPER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statements made in this House on the Ministry of Munitions Vote last week, in which it was shown that Colonel Spurrier himself had been negotiating with Messrs. Lever Brothers for a contract involving
£450,000, and if that is so, was he not acting contrary to the Regulations which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a great difference between being employed by a superior in writing letters and concluding negotiations. On this general question I appeal to the hon. Baronet as well as to the House. It is not fair to make in any way, however indirect, suggestions of this kind unless one is absolutely certain that a public servant is not acting properly.

Major NALL: Is it not a fact that the sale was effected at considerably more than Messrs. Lever offered?

Mr. E. WOOD: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if these kind of insinuations are made, resting on no very secure foundation, it will become increasingly difficult to secure men to undertake public service?

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that Colonel Spurrier himself has been in direct negotiations with motor lorries dealing with the Cologne dump, where also a very large number of lorries were concerned, far exceeding the amount mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The information I have given the House is given me by the Minister of Munitions. Colonel Spurrier was employed in carrying negotiations up to a given point. The final responsibility does not rest with him.

Brigadier-General CROFT: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on Monday by further questions which I think will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

CUMBERLAND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. GRANT: 72 and 79.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he has now had an opportunity of considering, along with the Board of Trade or otherwise, the possibility of an extension of the North-Eastern railway system to Nenthead in order to develop the mineral wealth of that district; at what decision, if any, has he arrived;
(2) whether he has now had an opportunity, in consultation with the Ministry of Transport or otherwise, of obtaining a
report on the mining and other industrial possibilities of Nenthead, Cumberland, with a view to the development of that inaccessible portion of Cumberland by means of an extension of the existing railway system?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): I have been asked to reply. The Board of Trade are investigating the mining and other industrial possibilities of the district referred to, and are in communication with the Joint Industrial Council for the Quarrying Industry, the Non-Ferrous Mining Interim Industrial Committee, and the Forestry Commission. When these investigations have been completed, the whole position will be put before the Ministry of Transport for immediate consideration.

Mr. SWAN: Can we have an assurance there will be an inquiry, as promised, as to opening up the whole of the minerals of that agricultural area?

Sir R. HORNE: According to the preliminary report I have before me, all the mineral resources of the district are being inquired into.

Mr. SWAN: When are we going to have the report?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES.

Captain TERRELL: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps, if any, he has taken to provide for agriculture an improved system of transport since he has taken office, with special reference to the feasibility of employing ex-army motor lorries and ex-army light railways as promised by the Prime Minister during the last General Election?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): It must be remembered that the Ministry of Transport has no funds at present from which to assist in the provision of improved transport facilities. A sum is provided for this purpose in the Estimates for 1920–1921, which will shortly come before this House. The limited amount which will be available for grants or loans for development purposes make it essential that only those schemes should be supported at the present time which the Ministry of Agriculture endorse as
being urgently required, and which show a reasonable prospect of proving remunerative ultimately. To arrive at a priority classification and an estimated balance-sheet in connection with such a large number of proposals is necessarily a matter which requires minute investigation. This work is proceeding in close consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture. As regards ex-service lorries and light railway material—these are in the hands of the Disposal Board and are available for purchase by promoters of transport undertakings.

Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason they are not being purchased is to be found in the new taxation? Does he consider he is assisting agricultural transport by recommending heavy taxation on motor transport?

Mr. NEAL: I do not think that the new taxation can have any effect on it.

Mr. BILLING: It is a case of intelligent anticipation.

Dr. MURRAY: Is Scotland included in the Scheme?

RAILWAY SLEEPING BERTHS (THIRD CLASS).

Mr. PALMER: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the advisability of instituting third-class sleeping berths on British railways in the interests of that large section of the community who are unable to pay, in addition to the 50 per cent, increase in the ordinary fare, the first-class rate plus the added charge for the sleeping berth, which is also 50 per cent, above the pre-war figure?

Mr. NEAL: The provision of third-class sleeping cars would involve the construction of additional rolling stock, and add so considerably to the weight to be hauled that it would probably involve the running of additional trains. The comparatively small number of passengers that can be accommodated in sleeping cars would, moreover, render it impossible to provide them at third-class fares without serious loss.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUBLIN AND BLESSINGTON STEAM

TRAMWAY.

Mr. TURTON: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport the reason for the refusal of the Ministry of Transport to return to the county councils of Dublin and Wicklow moneys paid by them since 1st January, 1917, in respect of the working expenses
of the Dublin and Blessington steam tramway in excess of the amount contributed towards working expenses in 1913; and if he will direct that the necessary adjustment be made forthwith as provided by Section 1 of the Irish Railways (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1919.

Mr. NEAL: The hon. Member is (if I may venture to say so) confusing two distinct matters, namely, the Agreement under which the railway of which the county councils are the owners came under Government control, and the provisions of the Irish Railways (Confirmation of Agreement) Act, 1919. Under the Agreement the county councils are not entitled to recover from the Government the expenses in question. The Act only extends to those local authorities who are under obligation to guarantee dividends in respect of railways owned by companies.

ATLANTIC FARES AND FREIGHTS.

Sir R. COOPER: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he was consulted officially before the Atlantic shipping combine made their recent increase in passenger fares and in freights; and has he any information to show that these increases were justified.

Sir R. HORNE: The Board of Trade have no power to regulate passenger fares or freights, and they have no statutory authority to investigate whether rates are justified. Accordingly it was not necessary to consult the Board of Trade, and they were not consulted or informed of the reasons for the recent increase in Atlantic rates. It would seem not unlikely that the great and pressing demand for accommodation on Atlantic liners, combined with increases in working expenses, have had the ordinary economic results of increasing the cost of the supply.

Sir R. COOPER: In view of the ever-increasing cost of living, can the right hon. Gentleman not consider the desirability and advantage of taking powers to deal with these matters?

Sir R. HORNE: To take control of shipping freights is a very large matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

BUNKER COAL.

Mr. SPENCER: 76 and 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the
total quantity of coal sold as coastwise bunkers during the month ended 31st March, 1920, the average price per ton thereof, the total value thereof, and the method adopted by the Department for collecting and verifying the information relating thereto;
(2) the total quantity of coal sold as bunker coals, other than coastwise bunkers, during the month ending 31st March, 1920; the average price per ton thereof; the total value thereof; the amount sold during the month ended 31st March, 1920, prior to the date upon which the coalowners granted a reduction in prices to shipowners; the average price per ton before the concession was granted; the total value thereof; the total quantity sold as and from the date of the concession of coalowners to ship-owners up to and including 31st March, 1920; the average price per ton thereof; the total value thereof; and the method adopted by the Department for collecting and verifying the information relating thereto?

Sir R. HORNE: The total quantities of coal shipped as coastwise bunkers and as bunker coals for the use of steamers engaged in the foreign trade during the month of March, 1920, were 152,590 tons 1,162,375 tons, respectively. Information with regard to the average price and the value of this coal is not recorded by His Majesty's Customs, nor can particulars be stated of the quantities shipped as bunkers for foreign-going vessels during the month of March prior, or subsequent to, the date upon which the coalowners granted a reduction in prices to ship-owners

Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government is doing towards getting an increased output of coal?

Sir R. HORNE: Of course, we are doing all that we can by moral suasion.

EXPORTS TO NETHERLANDS.

Major ENTWISTLE: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that during the 11 months ending November, 1919, the Netherlands imported 3,410,212 tons of coal and coke; how much, if any, of this was imported from England; and the amounts exported, respectively, from each English port?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer involves a statistical statement, and with the permission of the House, I will have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement referred to:—

Of the 3,410,212 metric tons which are recorded in the Trade Accounts of the Netherlands as the amount of the imports during January-November, 1919, of coal, coke, lignite, and briquettes, the quantity recorded as imported from the United Kingdom was 371,153 metric tons.

The exports of coal and coke from each port in the United Kingdom to the Netherlands registered by His Majesty's Customs during the period in question were as follows (the "tons" given in the statement below are "long tons" of 2,240 lbs., or 1.016 metric tons):—


Port of Shipment,
Coal.
Coke.
Total.



Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


London
—
1,845
1,845


Blyth
2,851
—
2,851


Cardiff
2,670
—
2,670


Goole
6,667
3,516
10,183


Grimsby
507
—
507


Hartlepool
1,849
2,064
3,913


Hull
26,106
13,514
39,620


Immingham
6,198
677
6,875


Newcastle
126,934
12,489
139,423


Newport (Mon.)
4,249
—
4,249


Seaham
2,835
—
2,835


North Shields
4,427
—
4,427


South Shields
15,032
—
15,032


Stockton
1,802
—
1,802


Sunderland
6,002
2,038
8,040


Swansea
41,278
—
41,278


Burntisland
529
—
529


Grangemouth
11,851
376
12,227


Granton
1,430
—
1,430


Leith
22,290
—
22,290


Methil
60,673
—
60,673


United Kingdom
346,180
36,519
382,699

TYNE DOCK (TRIMMERS).

Mr. SWAN: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the quantity of work lost by the trimmers at Tyne Dock due to the method of coal control; and what action, if any, is being taken to balance the shipments on the Tyne, seeing Tyne Dock is down 47 per cent., while on the river as a whole is only down 6 per cent.; and if any action is being taken to pay the trimmers a minimum day's wage for days they lose, or
otherwise bring them under Part II of the National Insurance Act for donation benefit?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware of the diminution of work referred to, but it must be remembered that inland requirements of coal are responsible for greatly reduced shipments. The question of the diversion of coal from Tyne Dock to other places for shipment is under consideration by the local Coal and Coke Supplies Committee, following a discussion here with the trimmers last week. With reference to the last part of the question, coal trimmers are not insured under the National Insurance (Unemployment) Act, 1911–1919, but they are included among the classes it is proposed to bring into insurance by the Unemployment Insurance Bill now before Parliament. So far as any of the men are ex-service men and can satisfy the conditions of the Out-of-Work Donation scheme, they are entitled to receive donations in respect of unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

SYRUP.

Mr. GLANVILLE: 84.
asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that several hundred barrels of, syrup have been lying in the Surrey Commercial Docks for the last two years; what is the reason why it has not been removed for public consumption; and whether he intends to take such steps as will place or force it on the market?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The quantity of syrup at present in store at the Surrey Commercial Docks is comparatively small, and the oldest consignment was landed in September, 1919. The greater number of the barrels have only been there for a few weeks. In the circumstances, no action on my part would appear to be called for.

SUGAR.

Mr. PALMER: 85.
asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, owing to the fact that the rationing of sugar for preserving was announced before the decision as to price was arrived at, many poor persons in country districts now find themselves unable to purchase the sugar for which they have given orders to the retailer; and whether, in view of the dis-
satisfaction which has been aroused, he can see his way to make some concession in the interest of the smaller fruit growers?

Mr. McCURDY: When the announcement was originally made that a certain quantity of sugar would be set aside for domestic preserving, I much regret that it was not possible, owing to fluctuations in the world's sugar markets, to state the price which would be charged for sugar set aside for this purpose. Nor would it be possible to allow of any reduction being made in the price, which is already much below the cost at which sugar can be purchased to-day. I have no doubt, however, that there will be no difficulty, owing to the demand for sugar for domestic preserving being greatly in excess of the supply, in disposing of such quantities of sugar as cannot be taken up by those who originally applied for it. As the quantity of sugar which can be allotted is in the great majority of cases considerably less than the quantity applied for, it seems unlikely that many applicants will find themselves unable to purchase the smaller quantity.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: 86.
asked the Minister of Food what is the amount of sugar allowed to jam manufacturers for 1920–21; and what were the amounts given last year?

Mr. McCURDY: The quantity of sugar issued to jam manufacturers during 1919 was 200,500 tons. It is proposed, if circumstances permit, to allocate during 1920 112,500 tons.

HEBRIDES (STEAMER SERVICES).

Dr. MURRAY: 87.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is aware of the increasing difficulty of obtaining food and other supplies in the Hebrides in consequence of the reduced transport facilities to these islands; whether his Department is taking any steps to increase the steamer services in these areas; and whether he can hold out any hope of a speedy improvement?

Colonel WILSON: The position in the Hebrides is being carefully watched by the Departments concerned, and such steps as are possible will be taken with a view to improving the existing facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING COMMITTEES.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

Mr. CLYNES: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he is aware that this morning at a meeting of Standing Committee D to consider the Representation of the People Bill, a Motion was carried to adjourn the Committee on the ground that the Bill had no chance of passing into law, whether he is aware that the Government spokesman supported the Adjournment Motion for this reason, whether this attitude represents the policy of the Government with regard to the consideration of private Members' Bills which have passed Second Reading in this House, and whether the Government are prepared to take whatever action is necessary to maintain the rights of private Members as provided in the Standing Orders?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman's question was handed to me on the Bench and I have only just had time to read it. As it seems to me, the rights of private Members are limited to the time that is given to private Members. The Government is not under an obligation to find any facilities. That is how I understand the rule in this case as in others.

Mr. CLYNES: One must make allowance for the shortness of the notice. May I ask whether action of this kind in a Committee could not be taken by a group of Members who are opposed to the general principle of a Bill, and by carrying such a Motion as was carried to-day frustrate the intentions and desires of this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that it is the duty of those who support the Bill to be present? The same kind of inconvenience is possible at any moment if there is a majority hostile to the Bill.

Mr. CLYNES: Is not the function of a Committee upstairs rather that of examining a Bill in detail in order that it might again come back to the House, rather than passing a Resolution to prevent the House giving it further consideration?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the constitutional position of these Standing
Committees. They are acting as if they were a Committee of this House.

Sir S. HOARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of hon. Members would very much regret the fact if it is found that during this Session women are not given the vote on an equality with men, and if it is impossible that a private Members' Bill should be introduced, would he introduce a short measure to carry it into effect?

Mr. PALMER: Is it the function of a Committee upstairs to examine a Bill or to strangle a Bill?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is not a Bill remitted to a Grand Committee in order that the Committee may consider it, and not give its opinion as to what may happen to it after it comes back to the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. It is in precisely the same position as a Committee of this House, and it can carry a Motion of the kind if there is a majority in favour of it.

Lord R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think if the Committee uses its power in this kind of way it will not very seriously impair the usefulness of sending up Bills to Private Bill Committees? If a chance majority in a Standing Committee uses its power to destroy a Bill, does he not think that is straining their power and really bringing the whole system into contempt?

Sir E. CARSON: Have there not been many cases in the past where, when it was found that there was not the slightest chance of a Private Member's Bill passing this House, Committees have adjourned or dropped the Bill so as not to waste time in having the matter gone through when the result would be nil?

4.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN:: May I put this point? Assuming as I do the right of the ordinary Member to make the Motion to which my right hon. Friend has referred, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it inadvisable on the part of the Government representative to take such action as has been indicated in the question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, the House knows that I have not examined— I have not had time to look into—the question, but it does not seem to me
that that is necessarily an improper course for a Minister to take. I have seen cases myself in the House in which private Members' Bills have been dropped on Second Reading when the representative of the Government said that there was no chance of them becoming law, and no reason, therefore, for incurring a further waste of time.

Mr. BILLING: What opportunity have hon. Members of attending the Committee and giving in Committee the support which they gave on Second Reading? If there is a Committee in this House we get the notice on the usual Order Paper.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member presumably is not a Member of the Committee. They do get notice.

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that when the Second Reading of a Bill is passed by this House the Bill can be strangled by a Committee without the knowledge of hon. Members?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The same thing can happen in a Committee of the whole House if there is a majority of Members in favour of that course.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of considering this Bill itself?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is an entirely different question. I can give no pledge whatsoever that the Government will find time to deal with this matter this Session.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask your ruling on a point of Order, arising out of an incident which occurred this morning in Standing Committee D. That Standing Committee was not officially reported, and the question arose as to whether a financial resolution was necessary before the Committee continued to consider the Bill. The ruling of the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. W. Nicholson) was that
 The Representation of the People Act, 1918, in Section 15 provides for the expenses of registration. The proposed Bill does not create any new and distinct charge, although if passed into law it is true that the existing charge would be increased in amount and half of this increase would appear in the annual estimate, not as a new and distinct item, but under an existing heading to be passed by this House. Consequently as no new charge is imposed by this Bill a financial resolution and clause are not required.
May I ask whether a private Member-s Bill, imposing subsidiary charges, as in the case of the Representation of the People Bill, when these charges amount to a considerable sum, will in future be understood to be eligible for discussion by Standing Committee, without any financial resolution having been passed by the House, provided that the Bill be an amending Bill to a previous Act, the financial resolution of which Act expressly limited the resolution to the Bill in that Session?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I understand, the question of the hon. and gallant Member is not put forward in any way as an appeal from the decision of the Chair man? If it were, I should have to decline to give any ruling about it. I am not a court of appeal from the Chairman of a Standing Committee. In regard to the questions which the hon. and gallant Member has put, I can only say that the question in each case must depend upon the nature of the particular Bill, and I cannot possibly give a ruling which would deal with all Bills for all future time. Each Bill must be considered on its merits. Having looked carefully into this particular case I am bound to say that I agree thoroughly with the ruling which the Chairman gave, which seems to be quite correct.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

Mr. STANTON: May I ask your ruling on this matter. Last week I gave notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of a reply from the Leader of the House, I would raise a question upon the Adjournment some evening this week. May I be entitled to claim the indulgence of the House for a few minutes after 11 o'clock?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter which rests with me. It depends upon whether the House will stop to listen.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what businesss he proposes to take next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday, Supply—Colonial Office Vote.

On Tuesday, Report of the Budget Resolutions.

On Wednesday, if, as I hope, the Budget Resolutions be disposed of on Tuesday, the Profiteering Bill.

On Thursday, the Indemnity Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Masham Urban District Council with regard to the supply of gas and electricity; and for other purposes" [Masham Urban District Council Bill [ Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Severn Commissioners." [Severn Navigation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners; and for other purposes." [Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords.]

Masham Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Severn Navigation Bill [Lords],

Londonderry Port and Harbour Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

REDCAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RUGBY GAS BILL [LORDS].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the County Councils Association Expenses (Amendment) Bill, the Tramways (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, the Savings Banks Bill, and the Imperial War Museum Bill): Colonel Sir Robert Williams.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Savings Banks Bill, the Imperial War Museum Bill, and the County Councils Association Expenses (Amendment) Bill): Dr. Addison, Mr. Baldwin, and Sir Alfred Mond.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Lieutenant-Commander Young.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY. [6TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920-21, [PROGRESS].

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,899,862, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, a Grant in Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants in Aid of the Agricultural Wages Board, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."—[NOTE.—£2,200,000 has been voted on account. ]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The Estimate which I am asking the Committee to pass shows in the gross a diminution when compared with that of last year. The gross Estimate last year was £4,824,505. The gross Estimate this year is £4,528,873, showing a diminution of about £300,000. It is quite true that we are asking Parliament for a rather larger sum than last year. The reason is that the Appropriations-in-Aid are very much smaller. Owing to the closing down of various Departments connected with the Food Production Branch large receipts which came in last year will not come in this year, and also, owing to the sales of tractors, motor ploughs and other things, which were used by the Government during the War, being now practically completed, large receipts from those sales, which were very satisfactory, will not come into account this year. Therefore, although we are asking for rather more on the Vote, there is really a reduction in actual expenditure. The reduction would have been very much greater if it had not been for the very important duties of land settlement which had been put upon the Ministry by Parliament last year and which accounts for the very large increase of certain items of the Vote.
The proper way to look at this Vote is to compare it with the scale of the Vote before the War. There you will find a very large and, I think I shall be able to show, a very justifiable increase. The year before the War the gross Estimate was only £519,000; today it is £4,500,000. I agree that that is an enormous increase, but the reason for it is quite easy to find. It consists in an entirely altered attitude of the country and the Government towards agriculture. Before the War it was a commonplace to say that for many years agriculture had been neglected in this country. I will go further and say that the word "neglect" is not really strong enough. Agriculture had been deliberately sacrificed. The economic policy which prevailed during the last half of the 19th century and the early years of this century deliberately sacrificed agricultural interests. The policy was to import all the foodstuffs as cheaply as possible from every part of the world in order to exchange them for the exports of manufactured goods. That policy, it may be said, made the country rich. Political economists would tell us that it did make the country rich; but at any rate it had this effect: it made us dangerously dependent on foreign supplies for our food, and it largely depopulated the country districts and ruined our agricultural population. Then came the War, and the Government and the nation realised what some of us had been preaching in the wilderness for many years before. They realised our dangerous dependence on foreign food supplies, and as a result there was a great appeal for more home production. That appeal was magnificently answered by the farmers of this country. We also realise how the country districts have been depopulated, and we have been making every effort since to repopulate the country districts. We can only repopulate them if we make agriculture economically successful, and the danger we are faced with to-day is that many of the lessons that were learned in the War are already being forgotten by the people of this country.
With this changed attitude towards agriculture, there came also an entirely changed conception of the duties of the Ministry of Agriculture. When we were originally established 25 or 30 years ago, the idea of the Board of Agriculture as it then was, was merely to carry out cer-
tain Acts, in fact, to be a sort of police authority to stamp out insect pests and animal diseases, to muzzle dogs, and do other important duties of that sort. There was no idea that the Board of Agriculture should take an active part in what I may call the constructive development of this great industry. With that changed attitude towards the industry there has come a change of idea as to the functions of the Board. The outward and visible sign of this inward and spiritual grace has been the fact that Parliament has changed us from a Board of Agriculture into a Ministry of Agriculture. I do not quite know what difference the name makes, but I understand that we are now regarded as a first-class establishment, and that we have been promoted in practically every way except that there has been no increase in the salary of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture (Lord Lee of Fareham) and myself. The result is that my Noble Friend and I find ourselves doing A1 work on a C3 salary; but we have our reward in the consciousness of duty cheaply and nobly done. A great change has come over the idea as to the duties of the Ministry. We are to take an active part, and we are taking an active part, in the promotion of the industry in every possible way, and I will indicate very generally some of our principal functions and show how at the present time we are endeavouring to promote the interests of the industry.
The first matter with which I will deal is the question of agricultural education and research. In no way were we more neglectful of our duties than in the matter of agricultural education and research before the War. I am ashamed to say that for this purpose we spent in 1908–9 the miserable sum of only £13,300. In 1913–14, after the Development Fund had been established, there was some improvement and the figure went up to £73,150. While this great country was spending the miserable sum of £13,000, rising to £73,000, Canada on similar services was spending £840,000 a year, and the United States for the Federal allocations alone, apart from what the various States were doing, was spending no less than £4,000,000. Nothing is more important than this subject. The future of agriculture depends on know- ledge, and we ought to be in a position,
first of all, to ascertain all the latest and best processes and, secondly, to extend and disseminate that knowledge so that those who are going to be the practical cultivators of the soil can do so to the best possible advantage. I am glad to think that one of the increases we have to consider to-day is largely the result of the great additional work we are doing both in agricultural research and in agricultural education. Research was done for many years in this country largely through the beneficence or the enterprise of private individuals. It is impossible really to estimate the wonderful improvements in agriculture that were made as a result of the great experiments carried out at Rothamsted. We have now put our research on a reasonable basis. We are trying to concentrate certain lines of research at definite places. We are dealing with plant physiology at the Imperial College of Science and Technology, with plant breeding and animal nutrition at the University of Cambridge; fruit growing at the University of Bristol; soil problems and plant pathology at Rothamsted, animal pathology at the Royal Veterinary College, dairying at Reading, zoology at Birmingham, and agricultural economics at the University of Oxford. To all these different institutions we make grants, grants that are not incommensurate with the great work that is being performed. The people who carry on these researches are not Civil Servants, but they are assisted in their work by the State. Although there is a great increase in the amount of money we are expending compared with the very small amount in the years before the War, I feel perfectly certain that the Committee will not stint this money, because every penny spent on agricultural research is money well invested and will bring back a very handsome return. So much for research.
Having got your research, the important thing is to disseminate the knowledge among those who are going to be practical agriculturists. We have various methods for carrying out this dissemination. We first of all have the agricultural colleges, which are supported on these Votes by the State. These are principally for the sons of landowners, for those who are going to be landowners, and especially managers, and every effort is made to see that a very good agricul-
tural education is given. But we want to go beyond that. We want to give the best education possible in agriculture to the sons of small farmers, who will be the practical cultivators of the soil in the future, and for these we are setting up what we call farm institutes in most counties. We assist the counties and we get assistance from the counties. I am glad to say that the majority of the counties are now taking up this scheme. At the farm institute there will be courses for farmers' sons in the dead time of the winter, which will be carried on from one year to another. There will also be courses for women in such subjects as dairying in the summer. In addition, the farm institute becomes the centre of county agricultural education, where you have your county demonstration plot, and where various experiments are carried out, and where your agricultural organiser will spend his time chiefly. The farm institute will be the centre for the dissemination of knowledge for the whole of the county.
Then we have what we call the demonstration plot. The demonstration plot is run on strictly economic lines. We want to prove to farmers, who are often sceptics in regard to new processes, but who will come in very quickly if they are convinced there is money in it, that certain new processes can be carried on on strictly economic lines. We are starting a number of demonstration plots. The most important are the plots we are starting for the purpose of illustrating the value of what is called arable dairying That is to say, more milk can be produced per acre of arable land than from grass land under suitable conditions. When we had to adopt the ploughing-up policy in connection with the Food Production Department, it was thought that that would interfere with our milk production. The Board of Agriculture never took that view. We always held that even if this land was ploughed up and was not of use for cereals, it could with great advantage be used for the production of milk. Anyone who has been to the Harper Adams College in Shropshire or who has studied their report must realise this, that under suitable conditions, by the production of fodder produce, milk can be produced in greater quantities per acre off arable land than can possibly be done from grass land. We are trying to prove that by demon
stration plots all over the country, and we are trying to do it on an economic basis, and by showing that milk can be produced in greater quantities per acre on arable land, and that it can be done on an economic basis, we shall appeal to the practical farmer.
There are a great many other ways in which we are endeavouring by experiment and by demonstration and so forth to assist the farmers in their work. We have the co-operative and travelling cheese schools. Provision is made in the Votes for these. These schools have been an enormous success. As a result of our co-operative and travelling cheese schools we have more than doubled the amount of cheese produced in 1919, as compared with 1918. We have introduced the manufacture of cheese—a process which is most useful to the dairy farmer at times when there is a flush of milk—into counties which had never produced a single penny-worth of cheese before. Cornwall had never raised cheese in any quantity, but Cornwall cheese has now become quite celebrated, and I hope it will go round the world. In these ways we have shown farmers how they can make use of their milk, when there is a flush of milk, by turning it into cheese. That is greatly to their advantage, and greatly to the benefit of the food production of this country. Then there is our live stock scheme, which was started at the beginning of the War. There is an increased Vote for it to-day. Under the scheme you provide, say, for the cost of a stallion or a bull or a boar for stock purposes. That scheme has bees very successful. It has introduced sires of good quality and has greatly improved the quality and character of the live stock in the country. Then there is our grassland improvement scheme. We do not want to encourage the laying down of arable to grass, but there is a great deal of grass in this country of a very indifferent quality, and there can be no doubt that by demonstration, by lectures, and so on, and by pointing out the necessary processes, such as the application of basic slag, we can greatly improve the quality of the grass in many parts. We do not neglect horticulture. There is a Vote for horticulture. We want to see every county with its horticultural instructor. We want to help the smallholder and the allotment holder in the cultivation of his
small plot of land, to increase the food it produces, and to encourage him to go in for small live-stock, such as rabbits, bees, and poultry-keeping on a small scale.
Very successful experiments have been made for the purpose of mitigating that terrible disease, wart disease in potatoes, Which has wrought such havoc in many parts of the country. I am sorry to say that we have not discovered how to prevent this disease. We know that certain lands get infected, and remain infected for years, but we have been able largely to turn the flank of the disease by the introduction of immune varieties, which, although they are not always as good croppers as some of the susceptible varieties, at all events can be used in those places where the land is infected, and by that means we have been able to prevent the spread of the disease to those great districts in the eastern counties which have always been the principal parts of England for the production of potatoes. Another experiment we are carrying on deals with the cultivation of light lands in Norfolk and Suffolk. Any hon. Member who is cognisant with the conditions of some of the eastern counties, know that there is a great tract of very light soil which is on the verge of cultivation, but which is not cultivated at all now. It is so light, so sandy, that it blows about. I visited a farm a year or so ago on the verge of Norfolk and Suffolk, and I said to the farmer, "Are you in Norfolk or Suffolk?" He replied, "It depends on the way the wind is blowing. If it is blowing from the North I am in Suffolk. If it is blowing from the South I am in Norfolk." That is difficult land to cultivate. But we have acquired a certain area in the neighbourhood of Methwold, and we are showing how that kind of land can be cultivated, and are utilising it at the present time for the growth of tobacco.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it profitable?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are carrying on the experiments, and my latest in- formation is that it will be profitable. At all events, if we can prove that, we have done something to show how a tract of most unproductive country can be made profitable. I have not smoked any of the tobacco myself. I did once smoke
Irish tobacco, and I said that I would: never smoke it again. I trust that ours may be of a better quality than the Irish tobacco. We are carrying on the Experiment, and I venture to say that the small sum that we are asking for it is money well spent. I might mention another experiment. We are setting up a lactose factory for dealing with whey, which, as everybody knows, is a by-product of cheese. Where you have cheese made on the farm, the whey can be used for rearing pigs,and—as we can now show—for rearing calves, but where cheese is made away from the farm it is a question what to do with it. This whey contains a large amount of albumen and sugar which is now being largely wasted, being poured down the drain and so on. We believe that we can find some use for this whey, and we have set up this experimental factory. I am told that lactose is a very valuable substance for food for invalids and children.
Finally, before I pass from this branch of my subject, I would like to make a few observations about what we are doing in connection with sugar-beet. In the Estimates there is a sum of £250,000 down for sugar-beet. We have long believed that in this country we could grow sugar-beet profitably, just as it is done in the North of France, Germany, and other countries. I have seen sugar-beet growing in the North of France. The climate there is certainly no better than the climate in this country, and yet they are growing it successfully For the purpose of experimenting on a thoroughly proper scale and with every possible advantage, a society was formed, and, with aid from the Development Fund, they acquired an estate at a place called Kelham, near Newark in Nottinghamshire. They were assisted by the Development Fund who gave them a loan of P 130,000 odd. That loan has been diminished by the fact that a part of the estate has since been sold to the Government for a farm colony, and £47,450 has been taken off the loan for that purpose. Until the society was ready to get to work, the Ministry have been farming it, and a further sum of £35,000 has been advanced to provide the working capital of the farm, with the result that the society have had loans which amount to about £120,000 net. The society has parted with its property to a company called
Home-Grown Sugar, Limited, by an arrangement which was made by the Treasury and the Ministry of Agriculture. The capital is £1,000,000. It is proposed to call up £500,000. £125,000 has been found by the directors and the members of the society, another £125,000 has been found by the general public, and the Government are prepared to advance £250,000, and also to guarantee interest on the money subscribed by the public at 5 per cent for ten years. I wish to ask the House to authorise the expenditure of this £250,000 by the Government in order that the company may get to work immediately. We want to get the factory finished and in working order in time for next year's crop. A great deal of sugar-beet can be grown on the estate. A great deal more will have to be grown in the neighbourhood, which is said to be exceptionally suitable for the crop. It will add a new and a valuable crop for the rotation of crops.

Mr. ACLAND: I think the House will want to know something of the terms of the advance. What are the provisions for repayment, the interest which will be ultimately paid upon the money, and so on?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Government really invest this money in the company. The company may pay it off at any time at par, but until they have paid it off they cannot declare a dividend more than 5 per cent on the capital.

Mr. LAMBERT: Do the Government get pari passu security?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, the Government do not. It is an advance for the express purpose of enabling this great experiment to be kept up, but it is repayable, and, until it is repaid, the company cannot pay more than 5 per cent, on the capital. It may be said that this should have been done on other terms. We had to consider how we could get the experiment going, and, unless we had made conditions of this sort, we should never have been able to raise the capital. The Government are represented on the Board, and I believe that the experiment will prove successful, but the sooner we get to work the better, and for that reason I am going to ask the Committee to pass this Vote to-night. These are various ways in which the
Government have been endeavouring to assist agriculture in its practical development.
I must say a word about one or two other matters. I must speak about our original duties and our police duties in the matter of animal diseases, and so on. We have had rather a troublesome time in the past year. First of all, we had a serious outbreak of rabies, and then we had a very troublesome series of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. With regard to rabies, we were much criticised. We were told that we ought to muzzle the whole country and that we should never stamp the disease out otherwise. I am glad to think that we did not adopt that plan. It would have put people all over the Kingdom to enormous trouble and expense, and we have succeeded, by drawing circles round infected districts, and by prohibiting movements out of infected areas, I will not say in stamping out the disease but in largely curtailing the spread of it. There have been only two outbreaks in the last few months. A great many muzzling areas have been got rid of, and I earnestly hope, if there are no more outbreaks, that we may have the thing stamped out entirely in a few months' time. The Committee knows very well the method that we pursue in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. Directly there is an outbreak we come down upon it as strongly as we can, and we stamp it out there and then. It is an expensive process, meaning very heavy sums for compensation, but it is worth doing, and, although we have had sporadic outbreaks all over the country, I am glad to say that up to a few days ago we had been absolutely immune for some weeks. Unfortunately, there have been two more outbreaks in the last few days, one in Norfolk and the other, I believe, in Kent, but we shall pursue our policy of stamping it out by the strongest possible methods whenever it shows its head, and in the meantime we have appointed a committee of experts to inquire into the whole matter with a view of trying to discover the origin and cause of the disease, in order to be able to take more effective preventive measures in the future.
There is another very big matter to which I must refer, and which has caused a very considerable increase in our Estimates this year. We have been asked to undertake, and we have gladly under
taken, training schemes for ex-officers and soldiers who fought in the great War. It was felt that a chance should be given to many of these men to return to agriculture. We want to increase and encourage our rural population, and it was felt that these men who had done such splendid work during the War ought to have the opportunity at the expense of the Government. Our training scheme is costing £782,000, and it is divided really into two separate classes. There is, first, what is called the officers ' training. It is not confined exclusively to officers. It is extended to men in the ranks who have had a good education. That scheme is divided into two subheads. First of all there is a limited number of scholarships, one hundred altogether, at the agricultural colleges. They are for men who will become agricultural experts, lecturers, organisers, and so on. They will get a first-class education and, no doubt, will be able to do very good work afterwards. The openings for men of that class are small in number, and we were obliged to limit the scholarships to 100, because we did not think that we could find work for more men of that class during the next few years. Besides that, there is a scheme whereby they are placed on the land under farmers for a period, and where they really learn the practical work of the farm. The scheme has been very well carried out. We have been greatly helped by the County Agricultural Committees. No less than 2,000 of these men are in training to-day, and I am very hopeful, from the reports that I get, that they are acquiring very useful knowledge and that they will be a valuable addition to our rural population.
There is another scheme for the training of disabled men in agriculture which we took over from the Ministry of Pensions. We have at present 1,750 disabled men in training, chiefly in horticulture and so forth. The work is going on well, the men take a great interest in it, and the outdoor life with good food and all the rest of it has had a wonderful curative effect upon their disabilities. All that is most hopeful; but I candidly confess that my Noble Friend and I view the outlook of some of these men with a considerable amount of apprehension. It is all very well to put
them on the land two years for training, but the question is what we are to do with them afterwards. Owing to their disabilities, a great many of them will never be able to compete with the average agricultural labourer in the labour market. The present rate of wages makes it prohibitive, and many of these men cannot do a whole day's work in the way that a fit man can. Then there is the question of small holdings for them. I should like to see them all provided with something in the nature of a cottage home; but there are great difficulties. I do not believe many of these men will ever be able to do the rough- and-tumble work of a small holding. What they can do is to have a cottage holding with a small bit of land where they can grow fruit and vegetables and keep bees and pigs and rabbits, or something of that sort, and enjoy the proceeds in addition to the pension which they receive. But it is a very expensive scheme. It means the building of a vast number of cottages; it means erecting a very large number of small buildings to a few acres. It is a scheme which will cost a great deal more than ordinary land settlement. We have the position of these men very much on our minds at present, and we are endeavouring to find a solution which, without being too onerous to the State, will at all events give these gallant fellows some hope in life for the future.
I turn now to the very big and very expensive operation in which we are engaged, which accounts for by far the largest item in the increase of our Estimates, in so far as there is an increase. That is Land Settlement. As the Committee knows, the duty of providing small holdings for ex-soldiers who were suitable, who had the knowledge, who had a bit of capital, was placed on the Ministry in the Land Settlement Act of 1919. We did not in the least object to that plan. We think it is perfectly right that these men, if suitable, should have a chance of cultivating a bit of the country for which they fought. At the same time we felt it our duty to be very careful in the selection of these men, because nothing could be more unkind to an ex-soldier than to put him on a small holding if he was not suitable to cultivate it. It really means disaster in the very near future. Another difficulty was that you cannot buy land all at once. If you did you would force up the price to an
impossible figure. Besides which, the whole of this country is well occupied, and we do not want to dispossess good cultivators, except in so far as it may be absolutely necessary. Then, also, there is the fact that in many cases a small holding requires a great deal of equipment in the shape of houses, buildings, fencing, and it may require roads, draining and so on. Therefore, if it is alleged against us, as it very often it, that we are going much too slowly, I would ask the Committee and ex-soldiers to exercise patience, as I think I shall be able to show that under the greatest difficulties the county councils have been tackling their job with real earnestness.
Let me give a few figures. The difficulty was rendered all the greater by the fact that we were not allowed to buy any land from the beginning of the War until December, 1918. Therefore we had no land in hand to start with. Also, we had not got the drastic powers we possess now until August, 1919, when the Land Settlement Bill was passed. The total number of applicants for small- holdings for ex-service men has been 33,646 up to date. They have applied for 582,000 acres. Of these, 19,587 have been approved for a total of 318,490 acres, and 7,142 are awaiting interviews. The balance between that figure and 33,000 have either been rejected or have dropped off and not renewed their applications. There has been a considerable application from civilians, and although I think we must, when the proper time comes, deal with these civilians—many of them are men who were willing to serve, but were kept at home to cultivate the fields during the War—yet, as the Act gives a preference for two years to ex-soldiers and to women who served on the land, the civilian, I am sorry to say, must wait until the ex-soldiers are settled. The Councils, therefore, as regards ex-service men, are faced with the duty of providing 318,000 acres, and up to date they have acquired 187,000 acres. I do not think it is a bad record, having regard to the shortness of the time. The latest returns show that up to 16th March 5,794 men, ex-service and some civilian, have actually been settled on 80,000 acres, and, in addition to that, for the Ministry's farm settlements we have acquired 32,000 acres and have settled 510 men, and there are 189 waiting to acquire holdings. Therefore, roughly speaking, we have
settled something in the neighbourhood of over 6,000 men out of about 20,000 who have been approved, which, I think, is not a bad record, having regard to the fact that the Act was passed only on 18th August last.
Of course, the scheme is costly, and, of course, there is going to be a loss. We anticipated there would be a loss. By a certain Clause in the Act of 1919, the Ministry recoups the county councils the annual loss for seven years, and at the end of the seven years it will write down the capital value to a figure which will represent the then market value of the holdings. I should like to explain why there is a loss. There are three reasons. First of all, because the price of land has gone up. I do not want anyone to think that we have been paying excessive prices for the land. I have had some inquiry made, and I find the county councils bought about 200,000 acres before the War at an average cost of £33 an acre. Since this new scheme came into operation we have bought about 180,000 acres at a cost of £41 an acre. When you remember how the value of everything else has gone up, and that the value of a sovereign has practically fallen more than 50 per cent., I do not think it can be said that we have been paying too much for the land or that the landowners have been profiteering, when the average rise has been only £8 an acre.
There are other reasons which contribute far more than the cost of the land to the loss on the smallholding. The first is the fact that every smallholding, or the great majority of them, involve the building of cottages and the erection of small farm buildings, and that whereas the equipment of the average smallholding before the War would have been, for cottage and buildings, about £600, it is now £1,500. But the chief cause is the high rate of interest at which the money has to be borrowed. It makes all the difference in the world to the loan charges if you borrow at 3 ½ per cent., as was done before the War, or borrow at 6 per cent., which is the figure now. What is the result? We do not intend to put these huge charges upon the ex-service men. We do not propose that they should pay an economic rent. If we did, that rent would be prohibitive. I find that a holding which could be let for about 28s. an acre, without equip-
ment, before the War, would now let for something in the neighbourhood of 57s. If you take the economic rent, and if you take a similar holding of 30 acres with equipment, on the average the rent would have to be over £6. It is obvious that we could not ask ex-service men or anyone else to pay those enormous rents. What we propose to do, therefore, is to make an annual loan on the great majority of these smallholdings, which will be paid off by the Ministry and recouped to the county councils year by year, and then the total capital value will have to be written down at the end. The principle on which we act is that the holding should be let at what is the to-day market value of the holding. If there are Members who think that our county councils are not doing their duty as energetically or as well as they could, I would answer that on the whole the work is being well done, and that if only we exercise a little patience, the great majority of these men will be suitably settled, and will, I hope, prove successful on their holdings.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is there to be a re-valuation at the end of seven years?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend recalls the Act passed last Session, he will see that there is to be a valuation at the end of the seven years, when the holdings will be handed over to the county councils on what, we hope, will be a self-supporting basis. I pass to another and separate branch of our duties, and that is fisheries. I know it is very often said, "Why on earth should fisheries be mixed up with agriculture, and why should there not be a separate Fisheries Ministry?—I do not think that under present circumstances this House or the country would be willing to set up a new Ministry. That is not all. I see my hon. Friend who represents a part of Scotland is sitting opposite. I think we should be obliged to have three Fisheries Ministries.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: We have our Fisheries Board in Scotland.

5.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: But it is only one Board under the Secretary for Scotland, just as our Fisheries Department comes under the Ministry of Agriculture in this country; but in order to have an effective
Fisheries Ministry dealing with fishing all round the coast as a national question, you would be obliged to have one Ministry for the whole of the United Kingdom, and I venture to suggest that my Scottish friends would not take that lying down. Under these circumstances, I do not think a Ministry of Fisheries is possible. It is necessary, therefore, that we should try to improve the Fisheries Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture so far as England and Wales are concerned. The industry is one of the greatest importance. It is allied to agriculture in that it is engaged in the production of food. It has some advantages over agriculture. There is no cost of growth, no feeding stuffs or fertilisers are necessary, and the crop is there, to be caught and brought away. I candidly confess that, so far as administration goes, it has been neglected somewhat in the past because it has been in a sense nobodyߣs child. We are trying to reorganise our Fisheries Branch. Our very efficient Assistant Secretary has become the Fisheries Secretary, responsible to the Minister direct without going to any other official, who has got no taint of agriculture about him. By generally extending the Branch we hope to perform more effective work in the fisheries in future. The importance of fisheries and the need of developing them on scientific lines has been shown in a very remarkable manner by the War. We found out this very interesting point, that owing to the fact that large fishery grounds which were extensively used before the War, had a sort of close time during the War, there has been an enormous improvement both in the number and size of the fish caught on those grounds. That, no doubt, means that a certain class of our fishing grounds were being over-fished before the War, and it means also that we ought to have a Government Department with power to regulate the fisheries, as otherwise we would fish out certain grounds and destroy them altogether. Here, again, we are very deficient in powers, and I earnestly hope I may be able in the course of this Session to bring in a Bill which will greatly strengthen our powers of dealing with fisheries, and if it cannot be passed this Session, I hope it may be in the very near future. Not only do we wish to regulate the fisheries in every way, but we want in every way also to encourage that most gallant set of men, the fisher-
men of this country. I do not know whether Members of this House have read the Report recently issued by the Ministry entitled "Fisheries in the Great War." It is an absolute epic of heroic deeds done by the fishermen. Fishermen proved the backbone of our auxiliary patrol. No less than 3,000 fishing vessels were employed, and 50 per cent, of the fishermen actually saw service during the War. Those who were not serving, and some of those who served at one time and fished at another time, went out to gather food in the gravest dangers of mines and the submarine menace and German brutality, and in face of those they behaved with the greatest bravery. We are, as I say, endeavouring to improve their position and to get the fishery business once more re-established.
During the War fisheries were greatly interfered with, and many fishing grounds could not be used at all. The result was that the quantity of fish landed fell from fifteen million cwt. in 1913 to only four million cwt. in 1917. There has been a considerable revival, and last year over ten million cwt. were landed, while for the first quarter of this year there has been a record landing. Fish is, of course, at a much higher price than it used to be. An average of twelve shilling and fivepence per cwt. rose to three pounds and fivepence in 1918, and that fell to one pound fifteen and elevenpence, a great deal less than the figure of 1918, but at the same time a great deal more than the former price. At the present moment the price is falling, and nearly all fish is being sold to day well below control prices. We are asking for grants to-day for various works in connection with our fishery development. We ask for money for research vessels. Without research vessels on the high seas we cannot do the work of research as it should be done, and as it is done in other countries. Let me refer also to the work of the Motor Loan Committee for inshore fishing. Inshore fishermen were enormously assisted during the War by the work of the Motor Loan Committee, which installed motors in a very large number of small vessels which had previously been dependent entirely on sail. No less than 365 of these vessels have had motors installed, and in 80 more the installation is in hand. We have also completed one motor trawler, and we have others under construction.
There are other matters in this connection. There is, for instance, the question of eels, which may seem a small matter; at first sight. We deal not only with inshore fisheries and deep-sea fisheries; but we also deal with fresh-water fisheries. We found during the War that, whereas this country consumed about seven thousand tons of eels every year, we were importing five thousand five hundred tons. The Germans, with their wonderful powers of penetration had acquired a station at Epney, on the Severn, where they were trapping elvers (young eels), and were despatching millions of them every year and distributing them in Germany to stock their own rivers. We commandeered that station, which, happily, no longer belongs to Germany, but belongs to the Ministry of Agriculture, and instead of those elvers being trapped for the people of Germany, they are being cultivated now for the stocking of our own rivers in order that we may grow and consume our own eels. There is no doubt that a good deal more could be done on these lines. A great deal has been done most successfully. When I come to examine the question of shell fish, most Members will naturally think of oysters; I am going to refer to the poor man's oyster, the mussel. We have mussel establishments where it is cultivated on various parts of the coast. Owing to pollution a great many of those mussel places had to be closed by the Ministry of Health. Our Ministry during the War established a most successful mussel station in North Wales which has put £5,500 per year into the pockets of the Conway fishermen, and which has provided the people of that part with mussels which are beyond suspicion and safe from all pollution. We have carried that work further, and are conducting experiments on the River Exe, near Exeter. Another matter of some interest in the destruction of fishery pests. Fish have got pests just as animals have diseases and plants have insects. We have a terrible invasion a few years ago by a gentleman known as the slipper limpet who came from America. He settled in the estuary of the Thames and very nearly destroyed all our oyster fisheries there. We tackled the slipper limpet and endeavoured to get rid of him and to use him, and we did so-successfully, for the production of food. We are doing it in this way. We first of
all used it as manure, but it was not very successful as it was not of a high character. We are now turning it into shell grit for the use of poultry, and the slipper limpet, instead of destroying the oyster, helps to produce eggs. I think it is a very good example of how limpets can be utilised for the benefit of the country generally. As to our fisheries generally we deplore the absence of powers to enable us effectively to organise, develop, and protect the industry. We are doing our best with such powers as we possess. We have reorganised the branch. We had a certain number of inspectors and officials and we have turned them, now rather multiplied in numbers, into a coastal staff for the general assistance of fishermen at the various ports, and they have proved of the greatest value. Fishermen who have returned from the War have found many difficulties, such as absence of coal, petrol for motor boats, sufficient tackle, difficulties of transport, and other questions. Without really sufficient legal powers our coastal fishery officers proved themselves of great assistance in re-establishing this most important industry. We attach great importance to international action in regard to fisheries. After all fisheries are not a thing that can be run by one country only, though, of course, in fisheries we lead the whole world. Our men go out in their big trawlers to fish the seas as far as Iceland and to the coast of Morocco and even further. International action, especially in connection with research, is of importance. We have readily supported a body known as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which met for the first time in London since the War. I am glad to think our energetic Secretary is now President of that body, and I look for great assistance in our work from the labours which they have undertaken.
I desire to apologise to the Committee for the rather long and I am afraid inadequate review of the work of the Ministry. We are a Ministry which perhaps is not as much in the limelight as some others. But we try honestly to do the work which is put before us. We are dealing with matters of great importance. We are trying to assist home production to the utmost of our ability.
Just as home production was all important during the War on account of the submarine menace, so to-day with the condition of the exchanges against us and high freights, the more we can produce, the better for the country generally. The better such production will be for the farmers, with their splendid independent self-reliance, and for the agricultural labourers who were far too much neglected for many years in this country, and whom we wish to see happy and contented, living in the country; for small holders, whose interests we are specially called upon to protect, and who, I hope, may bring to the cultivation of the soil many of those splendid qualities they displayed in the conduct of the War, and for our fishermen, whose splendid deeds I have already narrated during the War to this House. We are endeavouring in every way to assist agriculture and fisheries, but, after all, success in these industries must depend upon the men themselves. It cannot be accomplished by legislation or by Government Departments. All we can do is to make such conditions as may enable them to carry out their work under reasonable conditions and to give them all the assistance and knowledge and encouragement that we can. In undertaking this constructive work, especially the research work, putting before our cultivators and fishermen the best knowledge and the latest processes, and encouraging all who are going in for these industries to learn for themselves the best methods of treating nature, I think, by doing that, we are accomplishing good, sound work, and we may claim to justify that large increase in our Vote that has occurred, not since last year, but at all events since the period which existed before the beginning of the War.

Mr. ACLAND: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to say, as I am sure I can say, that the Committee have been extremely pleased and interested in listening to the statement of my right hon. Friend. It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that, as having had the honour to hold the position for some time which he now holds, and I think he has very worthily upheld the honour of the Department in the statement he has made. He began by paying what we cannot call much more than lip service to the actual Estimates which he has presented to the House. He did refer to
them, whereas some Ministers in making their annual statements do not even refer to the Estimates themselves, but I think the Committee would have been glad to have had a little more explanation of the actual Estimates, because, on the face of them, the figures are very startling. He told us quite frankly that whereas now be is asking for four millions odd, before the War the Estimates of the Board of Agriculture were something like half a million. That is, of course, an enormous increase, but there are some very remarkable figures of increase if you compare this year with last year. First of all, one sees in the Estimates that all the expenditure of the Food Production Department, about a million and a half, disappears, and a million or so disappears on the item of herring fishing, and in spite of that reduction of 2 ½ millions on those two items, there is a net increase of a million between this year and last. That is a very remarkable figure, and I think we should like to have had something more of an account of how that very considerable increase is arrived at. If one looks at the Estimates one notices that the Vote for salaries has gone up by nearly £100,000. I personally believe that that is justifiable. I believe that we have had false economy at the Board of Agriculture in the past by under-paying the men and under-staffing the office, but if you look into the particulars you see at once that there are two or three new men brought in at pretty high salaries, two, for instance, at £1,700 each, that there are eighteen fresh principal and first-class clerks, and twenty-one extra staff clerks, and I think the Committee would have been glad of some explanation of the work that these men do. I believe the explanation would have been satisfactory, but the fact that the representative of a really biggish spending Department like this, no doubt wanting not to make his speech too long, refrains from making any explanation of this very considerable increase of expenditure to the House only confirms what I and other Members feel, that we ought to have some system of examination of these Estimates in Committee, and then consider the report of the Committee when the Estimates come before us here; but we must do without that at present, as the Government has turned it down. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about
his hopes—I hope that did not mean that he has none—about getting into fresh premises. I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture at the time when we were just hoping to get into the buildings which had been built for us and which were captured from under our very noses by the Ministry of Munitions, who have held on to them like slipper-limpets ever since. Is there any prospect of getting them out? I am certain that not until the Ministry of Agriculture can really get itself together in one set of premises, instead of being scattered into about seventeen, it cannot be really efficient in the highest degree. Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any chance of a move?

Sir A.B0SCAWEN: I think there is a chance. I will not put it too high, but we believe the Ministry of Munitions will disappear and that the Ministry of Supply will not take its place, and in that case we hope to get into what is now called Armament Buildings, but which ought to be called Agriculture Buildings.

Mr. ACLAND: I think the right hon. Gentleman will be fully justified in taking advantage of the undoubtedly low state of popularity of the Ministry of Munitions generally, and I think I may say of the high state of popularity of the Ministry of Agriculture generally, in order to get the former out and the latter properly established. I want to ask a few questions about the general position as to food production, because that, after all, is the primary aim and object of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I very much agree with my right hon. Friend's concluding words, that there is still a food shortage. There is indeed, and there is every prospect of a world food shortage continuing. Until there is something like real appeasement in Europe, and the settling down to work again of populations in countries like South Russia, Poland, Hungary, and so on, there is bound to be a world shortage of food. I believe it is going to be for some years almost as acute in many ways as it was during the War, and I do not believe the world food crisis has anything like disappeared or shows anything like real prospects of disappearing. That has very widespread effects. It not' only means that sufficient nourishment is not within the grasp of hundreds of thousands, and,
indeed, of millions, of people, so that there must be, I am afraid, thousands of people really dying of starvation, but it means, and must mean, the continuation of high world prices for a great many of the primary necessities of our lives, and that means discontent and difficulty all over the many countries like our own which have a prospect, after all, of avoiding the greater evil of starvation. We see the thing happening day after day— prices go up, wages go up after them, prices go up again, and so the vicious circle goes on—and whatever any Government does, that is bound to happen, I think, as long as the demand of the world for the essential commodities of life enormously exceeds the supply of those essential commodities.
Therefore I think the Ministry of Agriculture is justified in regarding a forward campaign of food production every bit as much the first necessity of their work as it was during the height of the submarine difficulty in this country. In many ways the prospect is not very good. I do not know if it is the fault of the Ministry or not, but the fact, I think, is undoubted that a very great deal of land has gone back from corn land into grass. I should like figures, if they can be provided. Then the bad weather we have been having recently has rather changed the position as to the chances of crops, and so on, for this year. It was very unfortunate, I think, that during the fine weather—and there was a good deal of splendidly fine and warm weather this spring—when farmers might have got their grain into the ground, there was a most unfortunate uncertainty as to what the policy was with regard to the price of wheat and other cereals as the result of this year's harvest. Many men hesitated because they did not know where they were. He who hesitates is lost. The wet weather came, and it will be very difficult now to get that grain into the ground, with the best will in the world. In the West of England, I know, we have only about half our oats in, and before the ground is fit again it will be in many cases too late for oats. We shall have to sow vetch corn, food for beasts, instead of food for men direct, and even in the North of England and Scotland they have, I believe, a saying that May oats and June barley are very little good
indeed. There is going to be an awful lot of May oats this year, and I am afraid the produce of them may be very light. The position is not good, either, with regard to milk production. There has been, of course, owing to the difficulties of the feeding stuffs, an appalling loss of calves. Calves which ought to have been brought up have not been brought up, but have simply been killed, and I am afraid for years to come there will be a serious shortage of young milking stock. With this sort of thing staring us in the face, I think every effort is justified which can in any way add to our total food production in the next few years.
How can the Ministry help? In a few things they can help, and one is in regard to the supply of fertilisers We would like to know how that stands. Is the Ministry obtaining permission from the Government still to retain in this country something like an adequate supply of sulphate of ammonia for agricultural use without too great an increase in the price of that very important fertiliser? I know that prices abroad are very much higher than, by agreement among the producers, they have been here, but I think as long as the emergency here continues it is fully justifiable for the Ministry to retain here an adequate supply of sulphate of ammonia for our home farming. The same about super-phosphates. Farmers this spring would willingly have bought much more super-phosphates than they could get, but it was not procurable. It was being imported from Morocco—the rock, or whatever it is—and it is very important that agreements should be made for next season with France, which will make it certain that an adequate supply of super-phosphates shall reach this country for the use of the farmers as fertilisers. Similarly with regard to feeding stuffs. I am only entering a plea on all these things that really the war emergency is still existing and that everything ought to be done to secure that, in regard to fertilisers and feeding stuffs, the farmers should have what they need in order to maintain the highest possible scale of production.
When one goes about any agricultural district and asks about the farmers' difficulties, in many cases it comes down to the difficulty which is so present to the
minds of hon. Members, the difficulty about housing. They say very often, "We would willingly employ another labourer or two if there were cottages and houses available for them to live in." It is a very unfortunate thing that just at the time when we want to increase our arable land, which means more labour, it is specially difficult to get extra houses in which those workers can live, and in most rural districts—I suppose not in all—it is appalling how slowly the housing programme is going on and how slowly the deficiency of houses is being overtaken. There are young fellows who have got engaged to be married when they came back after the war and who want to settle down, and who are willing, in spite of the dullness of the agricultural districts, to live in them, young fellows and their sweethearts, but they have simply gone off, gone away, anywhere, because they have got sick and tired of expecting their rural district councillors to do anything to provide the houses which they really want. Even in cases where the farmers, to do them justice, would be willing to try' to produce a little more in the interests of the nation, and no doubt in their own as well, anything the Ministry of Agriculture can do to assist the Ministry of Health in pushing forward this housing programme will be of direct benefit to agricultural production at the present time. Land settlement also, I believe, has a direct bearing on getting the utmost out of agricultural production. I believe that these new cultivators, these men who want small bits of land to settle on, would generally, even in districts where there has been a high standard of farming in- the past, produce a higher standard of production, working, as they would be willing to work, all the days of the week, all the hours of the day, and many hours of the night, they and their families, to get the utmost out of smallholdings. I believe there is a great future for the smallholding which a man can run himself with members of his family, and that a very high standard of production can be expected from this holding.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend is quite right in pushing this matter forward, as a question of quite important national policy, but, as he says, undoubtedly the finance of it is extraordinarily difficult. You are getting in many districts men to
slice off a grass field, or perhaps a couple of arable fields, and hand them over to an ex-soldier who has settled in the village and wants a bit of land, has the necessary training and experience to make the best use of it, and where extra buildings are not very necessary—pigstyes, poultry houses, and so on, perhaps, but nothing in the way of farm buildings. You may, in some cases, take a farm and divide the buildings, having two families to share the farm and buildings; but when you come actually to providing buildings, the difficulty is very great indeed, and the expense, of course, is most serious. Take the case of a man who wants a 20-acre holding. If the average cost of the land is £40 per acre, then 20 acres will cost £800. That is not going to be the most serious item. If things could be done on that scale it would be comparatively easy. We should be wrong in thinking that the difficulty in the way of establishing this sort of small holding for ex-soldiers has been the high price demanded or obtained for the actual land. That is not the main point. The main point is the housing and equipment. In my part of the world the district council are letting their contracts for ordinary cottages at £1,200 and £1,300 each. I very much doubt whether you can get the cottage and equipment necessary for a 20-acre holding for less than £2,000.

Sir A. B0SCAWEN: With equipment.

Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I mean the water supply, equipment, roads, and everything. I believe that is a very moderate figure. If you call it £3,000 as the outside figure for land, buildings, and everything, that, at 8 per cent., means £240, and 8 per cent. is not high when you can only borrow at 6½. The ex-soldier himself will expect not to pay more than £3 an acre, and will feel aggrieved if you ask more than ∽60 an acre. Deducting £60 from £240 leaves £180, or bring it down, if you like, to £150 a year to be found by some authority beyond what the man himself can find. It is a tremendous bill for the country to have to face. We realise that the county councils on the whole have been doing well in getting land, but we should like to know, I think, to-day, or on some later occasion, whether they are really going to face—whether the nation is going to face—what will be a necessity. I think it has
got to be faced. I believe in the long run we shall get good value for settling these men, but it is an appalling bill to have to settle. For each 10,000 men you may be spending £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 a year. Another thing which I hope is being still attended to, to the utmost of their ability, in this food crisis—and I still call it a food crisis—is the question of allotments. I have a special interest in allotments, with which I will not bother the House, but I hope that they are accepting it as a definite part of the duty of their officers to do as much as they can to enforce upon local authorities the proper use of the provisions of the Acts which have recently been passed extending the powers of local authorities to obtain land for allotments.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are doing that. I meant to mention it.

Mr. ACLAND: I think that is good, because undoubtedly, just as in many cases the smallholder will produce on a more intensive scale than the larger farmer, so the allotment holder will produce on a more intensive scale than the smallholder, and there is nothing, I think, which may be of more usefulness to the State in times of industrial unrest than this means of occupation in hours of leisure, so that, in spite of the increasing demands of towns for housing schemes, and so on, they have got their 10 rods of land secured to them as allotments on which they can spend their spare time, and produce food, without any difficulty about transport or things of that kind, for themselves and their families. Then I want to ask a question about reclamation. Are practically all reclamation schemes abandoned? I know that it the pressure of the Treasury for economy, a good many of the plans the Ministry had made had to be abandoned. The Committee would like to know something, I believe, as to the policy of the Ministry as to reclamation. There seemed, for instance, to be rather promising schemes of reclamation on Bodmin Moor, in Cornwall, using the higher land for afforestation and the lower for agriculture. One hopes these things are not altogether abandoned where they really present a chance of being put on a productive basis after the expenditure of a certain amount of capital.
I come to the question to which my right hon. Friend, I think, wisely devoted
the greater portion of his speech—the question of research. It is, of course, more and more important that farmers should be certain that they are not wasting labour on their farms. It was not altogether a good thing before the War that labour seemed, and was, so cheap, because it did not really much matter whether you employed men on feeding and milking cows in your dairy herd, which were not really productive, or whether you had a crop or two which was not really pulling its weight in paying rent and rates. Now these things do matter. Farmers are beginning to think more seriously about labour, although the higher wage they have to pay in many counties is not really higher than the wage they paid before the War, when you take the enormously increased cost of living into account, and it is much more important to the farmer, in consequence of the increased cost of his labour, to be sure that labour is well used. Therefore, everything the Ministry can do in inducing farmers to keep accounts should be done. We shall be glad of some progress report as to their cost-accounting scheme, and the policy of keeping milk records, and weeding eut of their herds animals that cannot really pay. Anything they can do with regard to the application of science to the industry is, of course, very much to the good. I should like to ask a question, which Members have asked perennially, and never, I am afraid, got a satisfactory answer. Has anybody yet any idea of how the infection of foot-and-mouth disease is brought into this country? I am glad they have appointed a Committee of experts to go into the subject. They have done it before, though not with much result; but better luck next time. It is one of the things about which one always seems to be on the verge of making a discovery. You think you can trace it to a man coming home from abroad with the infection on his boot, or to feeding stuff coming in with infection. We never used to nail it down to anything in the past, and I gather it is the same at present. There is no suspicion which could amount to any sort of presumption of proof. With regard to research into plant diseases and pests, to all those who have looked into the appalling losses which occur to agriculturists in this country and other countries, I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree, it is a most important matter, and well worth while
devoting a certain amount of money to make real investigations and to acquaint farmers with their results.
I will not go into controversial questions at all this evening, although I do feel that in these days we should have liked something more like an analysis of these actual Estimates, and a real justification for some of these very large increases of proposed expenditure. On the whole, I am glad that the House was determined last Session to set up a real Ministry of Agriculture, and to make it into a first-class office, but I do warn my right hon. Friend—not that I suppose he needs warning—that the House will require from time to time a very distinct justification for the greatly increased grants of money for which his office is now asking, and definite proof that it is resulting steadily and effectively in increased means and increased efficiency in our standard of food production.

Captain HOTCHKIN: In connection with smallholdings, I should like to draw attention to a question which, I think, is of very great importance to disabled ex-service men who desire to obtain land from county councils. At the present moment, county councils are providing, and have provided, smallholdings for ex-service men, but this is done under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the applicant should have a thorough knowledge of agriculture, and another condition is that he should be physically fit. These are perfectly right and just reasons, but it debars, in many cases, disabled men from obtaining smallholdings through the county councils. Now, many of these men—in point of fact, most of them—have been to colleges and other centres where they can train in bee-keeping, poultry-keeping, pig-rearing, etc., and I would suggest that immediate facilities be given to county councils to enable them to acquire land for these most deserving cases, as they are constantly making application to the county councils for land. The land required would not be necessarily of the best quality; therefore it would be considerably cheaper than some other land. A very small equipment would be necessary for these holding, because the present buildings could be utilised. I am sure the men could be located in small groups, or near centres, where they would be likely to obtain suitable markets for their produce. I feel it only fair that the
very easiest possible facilities should be given to these men who have personally sacrificed so much in the interests of their country.
In conclusion, in the matter of small holdings I should like to raise one or two points. A great deal has been said about the cost to the taxpayer. There is no doubt about it that the cost will come very heavily on the taxpayer, as has already been explained. I do not, however, quite agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend opposite on this point. He has only taken the case of twenty-acre holdings. When you are making out schemes you do not go in entirely for twenty-acre holdings; you make use of the existing buildings and cottages, and adapt them to accommodate two or three families. Therefore the loss, though it would be extremely heavy, will not be anything like the proportions suggested. I personally consider that the smallholdings scheme is, apart from, anything else, one of the most beneficial reforms which has even been instituted in this country. We can look at it from several points. You cannot introduce any social reform without having to pay a considerable cost for it. On the other side, look at the benefit we are likely to get. Let me put the following point. First of all, we shall get improved health for the community owing to the larger number of people living upon the land. We shall also get improved health for future generations. Thirdly, there will be a greater tendency to thrift displayed by smallholders in comparison with many other workers, and that will be beneficial to the nation. We shall also learn lessons of co-operation which are so extremely necessary nowadays. The scheme, in addition, helps hard-pressed housing authorities by providing houses, and good houses, on the land, and inducing the people to move from congested areas. The smallholder also has the advantage of what I think will be found to be general prosperity and most comfortable housing. These are great advantages! I do feel that the smallholdings scheme is going to be one of the most beneficial that has ever been adopted in this country. It is going to help to stabilise things and to make people happy and contented; and this will do more to counteract the evils of Socialism than any other measure which has of late years been introduced.

Captain FITZROY: There are a great many Members anxious to speak upon this Agricultural Vote, and I shall not forget that; when one looks at the White Paper one realises the enormous number of subjects with which this Vote deals. I must, however, raise a protest at the inadequate time given to the Committee stage in the discussion of agricultural questions. I know the Government are anxious to get this Vote. I hope, therefore, there will be a renewal of this discussion after the Private Business has been got out of the way this evening, so that the Government may be able to get their Vote, which they will hardly expect if the discussion ends at a quarter past eight, and the rest of the evening is devoted to Private Bills.
In his remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture endeavoured to justify the increase in the amount of the Vote which he has presented to the Committee, on the ground of the altered attitude of the Government in regard to agriculture, compared to that which Governments used to take up in the past. If the future of agriculture depended upon the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first in this Debate, I am sure its future would be well assured; but I would point out that, important as the attitude of the Government towards agriculture is, the thing that is of real importance is the attitude of the industrial and urban populations towards the whole condition of agriculture; that is the thing which matters, and upon which prosperity depends. Agriculture is rather suffering from being under the shadow of the uncertainty of the Government's agricultural policy. It is not in order to discuss agricultural policy on this Vote, but I must take this opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do his utmost to press the Government to let us have that policy without further delay. The Prime Minister promised this policy as long ago as October, and I really do not think that it is too much to ask that it should be presented now that we have got to the latter part of April.
I do not propose to range over a variety of subjects. I desire to make a few remarks by way of eliciting a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary at the end of the Debate. There is an item in the Vote which deals with the Wages Board,
I think it is for travelling expenses and the salaries of the officials of the Board. I believe the Wages Board is a statutory body over which the Ministry of Agriculture has no control. Therefore, I am not quite clear as to whether the right hon. Gentleman can give me any satisfaction on this point. I understand the Central Wages Board has now altered its procedure to that adopted when it first commenced operations. The original Act proposed that the suggestion should go from the District Wages Board to the Central Wages Board, and should be considered by them. The later procedure is that the Central Wages Board send out their proposals to the District Wages Boards for their consideration. This is a complete reversal of the procedure as laid down in the Act. It is quite obvious that the procedure as laid down in the Act had for its object the differentiation between conditions that arise in different districts—the difference of soil, the greater expense of cultivation in one part of the country and another, and the varying costs of living in different parts of the country. But under the present procedure the original suggestion comes from the Central Wages Board, which has sent out its proposals to the District Wages Boards of a flat rate minimum wage following on the last award given, and which actually raises the amount of the minimum wage by a larger amount in the poorer districts than it does in the richer districts. This is, obviously, quite contrary to what was the original intention of the Act of Parliament.
I understand from the answer to a question in this House the other day that the Ministry of Agriculture has to do with fixing the maximum price of wheat from time to time. The Parliamentary Secretary informed us the other day that the cost of production would be taken into consideration when any revision of price is made. Since the last award given by the Wages Board a further proposal has been made that the minimum wage should be increased by a further 8s., bringing it up to 50s. per week. The maximum price of 95s. per quarter for wheat fixed, after some hesitation, at any rate, on behalf of the Government—so I understood from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, the other day—on the basis of the 42s. minimum wage. There was taken into account the 4s. 6d. rise which was made the other
day. What I want to ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance, when he replies, that if this further proposal is assented to by the Wages Board, that a further addition to the maximum price of wheat will take place in this year's harvest?
6.0 P.M.
There is one other question I should like to introduce. We have, unfortunately, had during the last few days further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. We had hoped that that was at an end, but the fact of these further outbreaks makes agriculturists still more anxious that there should be no departure whatever from the Government declaration, and that the embargo on foreign and Colonial cattle should not be removed. There was some agitation caused owing to the fact that to a certain extent, and by permission, a certain number of Frisian cattle had been imported under certain conditions. I am quite aware that under a sub-section of the Act of 1894, and confirmed by the Act of 1896, this is perfectly legal as far as the importation of Frisian cattle is concerned. Nevertheless, I assert that the breeds of cattle in this country are the best in the world. In this matter, I hope we shall resume our former position, and I trust we shall not need to supplement our herds by importations from abroad. In reference to this question of the importation of Frisian cattle under certain conditions, I want the Minister of Agriculture to assure me that there will be no departure from the rigid rule that store cattle shall not be allowed to be too freely imported into this country.
It is very often assumed that the whole danger of the importation of Colonial cattle lies in the fear of importing disease, but there is a very much graver danger than that. We have had brought home to us only recently the danger that this country is under if it depends too much on foreign supplies of food. We have had shown to us during the War that there is a danger of the food supply being cut off, and we came very near to that danger in the course of the late War. If ever we come to depend upon our meat supply through stores imported from abroad, we should be in a much worse position as regards our meat supply than we were in regard to our wheat supply during the War. As a matter of fact, we
cannot feed more animals than we can produce at home as stores. There has been a complaint in regard to the excessive slaughter of calves, but if we were dependent upon our stores from Canada, the slaughter of calves would be a great deal more excessive. How should we be placed if the store cattle from Canada were cut off, and we had been so foolish as to slaughter our calves. I only refer to this question, as it is a much larger one than purely the danger of importing disease. Knowing, as I do, that a great many hon. Members wish to raise important questions on this Vote, and realising the short time we have at our disposal, I will not add any more remarks to those which I have already made.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: I would like to associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) in congratulating the Minister of Agriculture upon his very interesting and informing speech. I think all of us in the House will agree that he was perfectly entitled to remind us that heretofore agriculture has been sadly neglected, and I am glad that he was able to rejoice in the fact that a substantial improvement had taken place. I think we all agree with him in placing in the forefront of his speech evidence of the great work that is being done by the Ministry in regard to education and research, for I am sure it in along that line that true agricultural development must be looked for. We are? confronted now with the phenomena of high prices. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne that the food crisis which we encountered during the War is still with us. I believe that there is a world scarcity, and until production is greatly stimulated, these high prices will remain acting as a handicap to our national recovery.
I hail with great satisfaction what has been done in the direction of settling ex-service men on the land. I confess that I came down to the House in a mood to offer some criticism on this point, because I thought progress had been very slow, and that county councils were negligent in this matter. However, what my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has told us has caused me to give further consideration to the matter, and I am not prone to criticise county councils because, after what has been said, it I appears to me that in the limited time
they have been operating I think they have done very well under the circumstances. They have done very well up to this point, and I trust they will be stimulated to renewed endeavour because, whatever the cost, I do not think any class or party in the State will in any way resent expenditure, so long as it is wisely made, in settling these splendid fellows upon the land for which they have fought.
The real point to which I want to draw attention is that raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne. A great deal was done during the War to speed up production with regard to the land of this country, and I am now asking whether the progress made under the distress of the War is going to be lost now that the War is over. It is quite correct for the Parliamentary Secretary to remind us that public memory is very short-lived. Of course, there is always a sub-conscious conflict between the urban and the rural interest. It is not that the town worker really desires to be placed in conflict with his rural brother, but there is his economic interest, and if food can be drawn from other parts of the world at a slightly less cost than it can be produced at home, then naturally he turns to the cheaper article, heedless of the harm he may be doing to his own class. We ought to turn ourselves to the question of what we can do, not only to maintain the stimulated production during the War, but in order to continue that process. Undoubtedly world prices will remain high for some considerable period. When we were discussing food prices a week or two ago I asserted that the outstanding fact of our period is that consumption outstrips production in the matter of food. We have the standard of living in every country advancing, and certainly the standard set in this country will be copied by every other country in the world. We know that great changes are taking place in the standard of living of Eastern peoples, and when we couple that with the fact that European countries are not producing anything like the quantity they produced before the War, none can wonder that there is a period of scarcity with us.
Whilst at the Ministry of Food this was an aspect of the question which had to be constantly taken into consideration. We knew approximately what were the available surpluses of food in the world, but
the uncertainty was the effectiveness of the demand which might be made by countries drawing upon those stores. Whilst there is no actual shortage of cereals in this country, taking the whole world into consideration, once effective demand becomes normal there is no surplus available. I am grieved to find that whereas we made progress in the cultivation of cereals during the War there is already a tendency to go back upon that policy. This may be due to the uncertainty indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy), and my right hon. Friend may have to deal with that point. It may be that I was partly responsible at that time, but I am not satisfied simply to have figures put up against me, and I want to know what is the justification for them. It is not sufficient to say that we ought to advance the price from 74s. to 95s. I want to know the facts which have entered into the calculation, and, when convinced, I am prepared to acknowledge that unless the British farmer can secure a fair price for his produce he cannot carry on the high wages and more humane conditions which I have insistently demanded ever since I have been a Member of this House for the agricultural class. Those conditions of higher wages can never be secure unless the farmer is secured fair prices. I subscribe to that principle. But, on the other hand, I want to have the facts justified before I am prepared to commit myself to them. If, therefore, I was responsible for the delay, that is my justification.
The Government have certainly given an indication of their determination to continue the policy of encouraging home production. I know there is considerable impatience for the Government policy to be revealed. I share that impatience. It seems to me that one of the most pressing problems of the time is that of food production. I was gratified to know that much more land was being brought under arable cultivation during the War, but despite all endeavours a very large increase in the production of wheat did not take place. Nevertheless there was a substantial increase, and I had hoped that that would be a continuous process. But we are already going back to our prewar experience, and I venture to express a hope that the policy foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman will result in an increase of cereal production. It is
very desirable we should produce as much as possible at home. We have, I hope, learned great lessons during the War. There are many considerations which should prompt us to grow more wheat at home. We are extremely dependent upon other countries. I am glad to observe that the harvest in India and the Argentine has been very good so far, and that the prospects in other countries are also not unfavourable. But, after all, these circumstances cannot always be relied upon, and if we had the produce in our own country, it would be under our own control. I have always asserted that we could, by the force of public opinion, and by Government action, keep conditions within reasonable limits, because our dependence on foreign markets places us at the mercy of those who have a surplus to dispose of, and rail as we may against profiteering, we are helpless in that particular regard. I do not share the apprehensions of those who feel we are losing in respect of our dairy herds. The figures do not reveal that.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Hear, hear!

Mr. ROBERTS: But there is some apprehension in respect to other cattle. It is a very significant fact that we were able to get through the War without any particular diminution of our herds. That is a fact of great credit to the British farmer. But here we may be misled by merely taking figures. There has been a great diminution in the weight of meat produced because of the difficulty of getting feeding stuffs. I hope we are recovering from that disadvantage now, and that we can bring our stock to full maturity. But it appears to me that the line of development that will have to be pursued is to increase the yield per unit. We have brought during the War a good deal of unsuitable land under arable cultivation, and the proceeds of some of that land cannot be justified as an economic proposition. But I believe, despite all that is said against the British farmer and despite the comparisons drawn with his competitors in other lands, he stands out very creditably. I believe he gets as good and an even better return per acre than does the farmer of any other country in the world, with perhaps a solitary exception here and there, which is explained by the fact that the smaller the country the more intense is the cultivation. When growing wheat on prairie land one is not
very particular about its cultivation, because it is possible to get a good return for a small outlay. But we have to go a great deal further, and I believe it is only along these lines that we shall be able to bring prices down to anything approximating to the pre-war level. I want to get rid of the three and three-and-a-half quarter per acre. We produce an average of four quarter per acre now, and it must be the policy of the Board of Agriculture, by their educational and research methods, to advise the farmer how it is possible to increase the yield per acre.
Similarly with respect to milk. During the greater part of last year I was involved in violent controversies respecting the price of milk. I had gone into the matter very exhaustively, and I was convinced that the prices as I fixed were, taking the country as a whole, reasonable and fair to the farmer. Having exhaustively enquired into the matter and reached my own conclusions, I stood by it, and I appeal to facts as justifying me in that respect. But here was the trouble. In my opinion the yield per cow was far too low. The gallon and a half and the two gallon cow must be got rid of, and it is by helping the farmer to a better selection, thereby increasing the yield, that I believe we can look as a means of reducing prices.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne said a word on behalf of the allotments movement. I know that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has so many requests to deal with that it is utterly impossible for him, having regard to considerations of time, to speak upon every one of these points. I believe we have very largely gained, under War stimulus, some 250,000 acres under cultivation as allotments, and in 1918 from these allotments there were produced 2,000,000 tons of food, practically furnishing, I am. informed, 10,000,000 of families with vegetables. I trust that every endeavour will be made by the Board to make these allotment-holders secure in their little holdings. It is a good movement. There are many social aspects of the matter. We know and we rejoice in the fact that hours of labour are being diminished, and one problem that will confront us in the near future is in what way, and how best, workmen can spend their new leisure. I believe many of them are extremely anxious to have the use of a small piece of land,
and that they derive there from a great deal of pleasure, besides making a substantial contribution to the food of the country. On one other point I would like to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It may be he will not regard it as of sufficient importance to reply to in the Debate. If so, perhaps he will send me an answer. I am glad that a Committee of Inquiry—although it is an addition to other inquiries—is to be set up to investigate the question of foot and mouth disease.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It has been set up.

Mr. ROBERTS: I am glad to hear it, and I congratulate the Board on it. My constituency happens to be very hard hit in connection with this matter. We have, I believe, one of the largest cattle markets in the world, and that is closed owing to an outbreak of foot and mouth disease somewhere in the district. I am not complaining of that. I think the policy of the Board in acting drastically in this matter is a very wise one. It is much better to err on the side of severity than on that of laxity, as this infection may spread very widely. But I want to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any late information respecting the disease in this district, whether it is now possible to have any modification of the Regulations, and whether he can give me an indication as to how long it will be before it will be possible to re-open the market? I may conclude by saying that I feel a new spirit is entering into this Ministry of Agriculture. I believe that that is reflected very largely throughout the country. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I want to see agriculture placed upon certain and secure foundations, for I am sure that it would be an all-round benefit to the country, and will also prevent our country becoming, what I was fearful once it would do, completely or permanently industrialised. A thorough development of agriculture, alongside manufactures, seems to me to be the means whereby our nation will acquire new and greater strength.

Mr. ROYCE: I should like in the first place to pay my tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. I have listened with great attention to his intensely interesting speech. I want to bring three or four
subjects to his notice, but before doing so, may I say I noted he told the House that Ministries could do something for the agricultural industry, but that self reliance and action on the part of the agriculturists of this country was necessary to bring agriculture to the high state of perfection to which we hope it will attain. Departments can do something and they can also undo something. I am rather sorry the previous speaker, when he was dealing with milk and other products, did not touch on the question of potatoes. The Ministry in my opinion, so far as regards their action or rather inaction, in connection with the 1918 crop, have been remiss. They have left too much in the hands of, or rather they have made insufficient protest in the matter of the action of the Food Ministry, and the result is that a good deal of dissatisfaction, and what is more important, a good deal of costly litigation seems to be impending in connection with this much discussed question. I ask the Minister to give me an assurance, in order to prevent legal action being taken by dissatisfied growers, that he will, realising that his Department was instrumental in stimulating these people to produce potatoes, and realising also that a good many people, and especially small people, have had to accept settlements which are altogether to their disadvantage, while stronger men will not accept such settlements, I ask him to be good enough to tell me whether he will receive a deputation of growers, with a view of discussing whether some settlement cannot be come to in conjunction with the Food Ministry in this matter. I trust he will take that matter into serious consideration. As there is a tremendous lot of trouble and dissatisfaction in the constituency I represent on this matter, I take the liberty of bringing it before him on this occasion.
I regret that the right hon. Gentleman made no mention in his speech of the subject of agricultural transport, although I know he could not touch upon everything, and, indeed, I wondered that he made such a comprehensive statement. The lesson is that, when a Ministry which deals with so many and diverse functions brings its vote before the House, there should be sufficient time to permit the Minister to make a proper representation, and to permit the House to discuss the matters involved. I should like to ask
exactly how the Ministry stands on this subject of agricultural transport. In my constituency we have made exhaustive surveys as regards the lines necessary, and also economic surveys. Roughly speaking, we find that, if these railways could be introduced—and they can only be introduced with the assistance of the Government—we could increase our production by something like £1,000,000 a year. I should like to ask what exactly the Government are prepared to do in this matter, and what particular functions the Ministry possesses in regard to it—whether it is only able to make recommendations to the Ministry of Transport, or whether it has the right to decide what lines shall or shall not be built—what contribution, if any, the Government contemplate making in this connection, and how we stand in relation to this matter. We have expended a great deal of money in making surveys and have obtained information which I think will be useful, not only to my own Division, but to many others. At the present time our average haulage is something like four miles, and at the lowest estimate it costs us from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d. per ton mile. The House will realise what that means in such a district as mine, which produces very heavy crops. By putting down rails we could save about £45,000 a year in transport alone. It is true that the scheme we suggest would cost something like £500,000, but it would be money well spent, and would be in the highest possible degree reproductive. The Ministry of Agriculture will be well employed in urging and assisting as much as possible in the promotion of agricultural transport facilities.
The other day I had occasion to refer to a drainage scheme that was brought forward, and I think that the Minister and those concerned with him are to be complimented on having brought out a scheme for the improvement, which was sadly needed, of the drainage of this country. If we were in the Soudan or some other remote part of the world, the Government would be promoting or guaranteeing loans for developing the land, but here in the heart of the Empire our drainage is in a condition that is a disgrace to us. When we consider what people did in years gone by, we are very unworthy descendants of them, for we are not keeping our drainage up to the con-
dition in which they left it fifty, sixty, or a hundred years ago. I congratulate the Minister on that portion of his work. With regard, however, to the subject of land reclamation, which has been already alluded to, I must say I have not much in the way of praise for the Ministry. They have attempted a piece of land reclamation on the coast of the Wash, and they have not shone as land reclaimers. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the average cost of land for the settlement of soldiers—presumably, and indeed I know, it was good land—was a little over £40 per acre. He has been indulging in a scheme of land reclamation from the sea, and so far as I can judge from the figures the cost will be at least £200 an acre. I should like to know whether he regards that as satisfactory. There is no question that the land is available for reclamation, and that it can be reclaimed, but it wants to be put into the hands of someone who knows something about it, and I am not quite sure that his Department does. At any rate, I am sure he will not argue that to reclaim land that was ripe for reclamation, at a cost of something like £200 an acre, is economical.
A sum is put down in the Estimates for the destruction of fish pests. I represent a constituency which, as well as being one of the greatest agricultural constituencies in the country, and almost in the world, is also a great fishing district. Our port of Boston sends out, as it has in the past, a good fleet of fishing ships. At the present time our fisheries are being destroyed by seals, with which the Wash swarms. The right hon. Gentleman told me in November last, in answer to a question, that the Ministry had no funds with which they could deal with pests, but I find they are now proposing to spend a large sum on the destruction of pests, and if these seals are not pests I do not know how you would describe them. I should like to know what steps the Ministry propose to take to deal with these particular pests. In years gone by a small allowance used to be made, I think of 10s., for each seal destroyed, and perhaps it would be a good thing to institute that again now. We have an aerodrome close by, and it would be excellent practice for the young airmen to drop on the seals some of those surplus bombs which remain over from the War.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That would kill more fish than ever.

Mr. ROYCE: There are very few fish there at present. They come up with the tide, and the seals take practically every one that comes up. This is a serious matter, because a number of these very deserving fishermen of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke so highly, but not too highly, are losing their living through these pests in the Wash. I should be deeply grateful if he could do something in this matter, and he will earn the thanks of my constituency.

Mr. E. WOOD: I wish to draw attention to the subject of the slaughter of calves. I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that that is a matter more properly for the Ministry of Food, and I only introduce it here because I assume that, if the Ministry of Food acted in this matter, it would do so largely on the advice given by the Ministry of Agriculture. I was a little surprised at the optimism with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts) spoke on this question. Incidentally, I might say that, whatever loss his departure has been to the Government, it is counterbalanced, from the point of view of this House, by his being here again as an independent Member. I should be surprised if, when the figures are produced, they do not reveal a considerable shrinkage in this department of our live stock. The question of any re-imposition of control in regard to the slaughter of calves is one upon which agricultural opinion is very divided, and I only refer to it in order to ask my right hon. Friend what view the Government takes about it. He knows the facts as well as I do, or better. I believe that the position, although not immediately serious, will be shown to be serious by the end of 1921. Its temporary security until then will be due to the supplies that our various Colonies are going to carry over on account of the shortage of shipping and so on, but from information that reaches me I am led to believe that, by the time I have mentioned, the results are likely to be seriously apparent. I am well aware of the natural causes that are in operation, and that the matter is bound up with milk and butter prices and high prices for store cattle, while it will be affected, as will every other agricultural
problem, by the question of a stable agricultural policy that would introduce what I may call the happy circle of more cereals, more cattle, more manure, and again more cereals.
In these Estimates, under the head H.1, there is a demand in respect of tuberculosis in cattle. I notice that in 1919–20 the sum taken under that head was £14,000. In 1920–21 a demand is made for £60,000—a very considerable increase. I should be glad if, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he could say what is the explanation of that increase, and whether we should be right in supposing that it has any relation, and, if so, what, to the suggestion of a rather drastic Milk Bill—or, rather, Act, for I think it is on the Statute Book and in suspense—in the near future. Another subject which has already been mentioned is that of the investigation of plant disease. I am sure, although it may not be an enlivening subject, it is one of the first importance, and one which, in the interests of agriculture, we should be very well advised to investigate.

Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
With the final suggestions of my hon. Friend I am in complete accord, and I hope to deal with the extremely important question of plant diseases. I hope and believe the Secretary to the Ministry will be able to give me such an assurance as to the policy and administration of the Ministry as will obviate the necessity of going to a Division. The loss suffered in this country by plant diseases, both insect and fungi, is far greater than the ordinary farmer, and still more the general public, realises. I believe they amount to a total of something like £30,000,000 a year, of which a large proportion is preventible by means which we now know, and a much larger porportion would be preventible if our research into the subject was carried further, and that prevention could, I am satisfied, be achieved at a comparatively small expenditure of money. To save pounds we must spend pennies, but as pennies have to be scrutinised carefully by the Treasury, and it is very difficult to get the Treasury to deal with any increase on a subject with which they are not familiar unless there is strong pressure from this House or from those who understand the subject, the Treasury cannot be expected
to give us any additional facilities without pressure, and in this Debate I hope we may satisfy the public and the Treasury that the expenditure of money here will effect a saving of food and money. I speak on behalf of the unofficial Committee of Members of the House presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Fitzroy). That Committee, I think, is unanimous that this matter ought to be dealt with on really efficient lines. Before the War in the Board of Agriculture very little was done. During the War, for various reasons, it has been very difficult for the Ministry to put administration in connection with this subject on satisfactory lines. They are now taking steps in the right direction. We want to give them strength in their appeal to the Treasury for the very small amount of additional money which is necessary to do the job properly.
The Committee may like one or two figures. There are no really satisfactory statistics in this country of what the loss amounts to. Various estimates have been made by various skilled persons as to the percentage of loss involved. For instance, I believe Professor Biffen has made an estimate of a loss of 10 per cent. in the wheat crop due to rust, smut and certain other similar diseases. Putting it at even 5 per cent., it represents on the crop of 1918 a loss of just upon £2,000,000. Similarly, to take another illustration the damage caused by fritfly, an insect which damaged our crops so severely in the year 1918, taking an estimate of 10 per cent., was £3,500,000. It has been estimated that potatoes, by ordinary potato blight in the year 1918, suffered a loss of not less than 1 ton per acre, representing £5,000,000. Wart disease has been estimated as causing in the previous year a loss of something over £2,000,000, and where wart disease gets into a district it infects the soil, and no crop can be planted in it afterwards without suffering from wart disease, unless it is one of those new varieties which have been invented by breeding which are immune from the disease. But those immune varieties yield a substantially smaller crop than the ordinary susceptible varieties, and in that way from wart disease you not only get the direct damage done by the disease, but the smaller production due to the smaller cropping power of the immune varieties. The Armstrong College in Northumberland estimated that the
total loss of crops by various pests, including birds, was 12 ½ per cent. per annum, birds being reckoned at 2½ per cent., leaving 10 per cent. of the total crop destroyed by fungi, insects and eelworm, and similar organisms. Abroad the figures are much better known. In the United States for 1918 in the various cereal crops a loss was incurred of 350,000,000 bushels through various plant diseases—about 6 per cent. of the whole of the crop. In Canada an inspector of our Ministry here has estimated that in one year there was a loss of £30,000,000 sterling on the staple crops alone, and Mr. J. S. Sanders, a director of the Pennsylvania Experimental Station, has estimated that from diseases of all kinds the total loss of crops in the United States is something like £400,000,000. Those figures are sufficient to show that the losses are enormous. In order to deal with them satisfactorily more knowledge of causes, more knowledge as to the real character of the diseases, and more knowledge as to the best methods of prevention are essential.
In order to get our farmers to put the control measures so discovered into practice, you must have men to appeal to the farmers and give them advice in whom the farmers will repose confidence—practical, sensible men equipped with scientific knowledge, and also possessed of a knowledge of the ordinary practice of farming. It is only in that way that we shall achieve real co-operation between the Ministry and our farming population upon which success really depends. We are spending a ridiculous sum on this branch of the Ministry. In the United States, as far as I can follow the figures, they spend between £300,000 and £400,000 in dealing with plant diseases. In this country, so far as I have been able to find the figures in the Estimates, they amount to £3,668. That is absurd. It is a tragedy that the real cause of agricultural progress should be stinted in that way.

Captain Sir B. STANIER: I think my hon. and learned Friend will find that it is not £300,000, but only £201,000.

Mr. SCOTT: I think my hon." Friend has not quite followed my figures.

Mr. CLYNES: In the case of our own country the hon. and learned Gentleman has given the losses in percentages, and
in the United States in weight. Is he able to state them both in percentages?

Mr. SCOTT: I have said that the total in this country can be only a rough estimate, because there are no satisfactory statistics. In regard to the United States, I gave the figure of 6 per cent, of cereal crops—wheat, barley, oats, rye, and maize. In this country the figures as to the percentage of loss are only estimates. I gave one which I believe has been given on one occasion by Professor Biffen, of 10 per cent. of the wheat crop under certain conditions. The great difficulty is that these vast losses are not measurable in this country very largely because there has been no sufficiently authoritative Department to produce the statistics. The men who ought to have been there to make these calculations and estimates have not been there. The men who have been there are valuable and devoted servants, giving their time and their great knowledge at utterly inadequate salaries, but there are too few of them.
7.0 P.M.
I now come to the organisation which is necessary in order that the matter should be efficiently dealt with. Let us look at it from three points of view. First, research which can, and must, in practice be divided into pure research and applied research. By pure research I mean the research of men who are seeking knowledge in a particular branch without having their mind on the solution of any particular problem or any particular place or crop. By applied research I mean research work for the purpose of answering particular problems. The next head is the advisory side—advising farmers what they ought to do in order to prevent damage to their crops. The third main point is what I may call administration, the carrying out of control measures in accordance with advice, or, if necessary, under legal powers, such as can be given to some extent by Orders in Council, though not to a sufficient extent, I think, under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts. It may be necessary to amend those Acts in order that the Ministry may have wider powers for the purpose of control measures. The main points are research, advice and administration. Take research first. A decision was taken about two years ago by the Board of Agriculture to hand the purely research side over to universities and
institutions, which are quite independent of the Board, and grants in aid are given to assist in carrying on the work. That is a perfectly sound decision. Men who are doing pure research work would probably do it best if they are left quite independent of Government control and enabled to pursue the problems they want to pursue without the necessity of trying to answer some particular question for some particular purpose. The other side of research has not been adequately dealt with. If you give pure research to independent bodies, then your department or branch in the Ministry must have power to do such research as is necessary for the purpose of forming its own opinion as to what advice it would give regarding particular problems. The staff for research work of that kind in the Ministry should be increased. That being so, I pass at once to the best constitution of the department at the Ministry dealing with the subject. There should be a strong, well-staffed, properly paid and equipped control department under the Board in the pathology branch. It should be the principal advisory authority, and should control and co-ordinate the advisers. It should deal with applied research, and it should be responsible for administrative measures, both control measures, apart from Acts of Parliament, and also for the execution of any statutory Orders in Council, under Acts of Parliament.
It is vitally necessary that there should be the closest connection between the advisory people at the centre and the research people, who may also be advisory people in some cases, on the one hand, and the advisory people and the inspectorate who go out in connection with the control measures, on the other hand. Unless you get that close working harmony you will never make the central station really effective. I am not dealing with the position at the moment, because I believe it is changing from day to day in the Ministry as the plans are being developed, but during the last few years and until recently there have been certain grave defects in the machinery. The central body of the Plant Pathology Department has not been doing the whole of the work. For instance, wart disease has not been dealt with by the central body at Kew; it has been handed over to the Horticultural Department, apparently for the reason that until the War no Orders in Council under the
Destructive Insects and Pests Act were made in regard to general agricultural produce, but only in regard to various articles of produce. The inspectors were attached to the Horticultural Department and, therefore, when wart disease had to be dealt with during the War by administrative order, it was handed over to the Horticultural Department, with a result which illustrates the dangers of want of adequate centralisation. Inquiries will come up from farmers and will go to Whitehall or to Victoria Street, or perhaps to Kew. The letter containing specimens of the plant and perhaps specimens of the insect, may be handed about between Whitehall and Victoria Street, and before it gets to Kew, where the technical staff is situated, and where they could identify the insect, the insect may be dead and the plant may have rotted. That kind of thing happens, and obviously it is inconsistent with efficiency.
That illustrates my point that the central station must be self-contained in all its branches. The Kew branch has no executive control over the staff inspectors. A good many of the inspectors, from personal zeal, would go and consult the staff, but there was no administrative rule compelling it, and no reason in law why they should go there, because they were not under the staff in any way. In regard to research, the present position is that at Kew there is no opportunity for effective research work because of the soil and climate and everything else. During the War, two years ago, the pure Research Department was transferred to Rothamstead under the Lawes Trust. It is proposed to transfer the whole Department to Rothamstead also. It is essential that wherever they go, whether to Rothamstead or elsewhere, there should be the right kind of land available in sufficient area, with the right kind of soil, and the right kind of climate, to enable the advisory people to do the research work. These technical details are of real importance. I will give an illustration of this evil of the advisory people not having the money, the facilities or the power to carry out the necessary research work. Take the case of wart disease. It is important that there should be means of sterilising the soil against wart disease, and in order to do that a certain amount of money is necessary. I understand that an application was made that the Plant
Pathology Department should carry out experiments to see whether some means of sterilising infected soil could be discovered, but the Department has not been able to carry out any such investigation, because wart disease had been taken from it and handed over to the Horticultural Department, and no financial provision has been made for this important work to be done.
In regard to wart disease, Sir Laurence Weaver, who was responsible for a time during the War for dealing with thedisease, stated at a meeting of the Farmers' Club in February that—
So far little has been done even in the way of establishing the life-history of this disgusting disease, and nothing in the way of finding a cure for it.
As regards this Department, it is at present both under-staffed and under-paid. The total staff consists of one head entomologist, one assistant entomologist, one head mycologist, dealing with fungi, rust, etc., one assistant mycologist, two typists, and one old man. It is perfectly absurd to suggest that that staff can deal with the problems that have to be dealt with, and that ought to be dealt with at once. The two head men, the head entomologist and the head mycologist, should, at least, have two assistants, one stationary at the central station all the time, and the other travelling about the country, because it is essential to remember that the real field for experiments is the farmer's field, where the disease is. You have to go to the place and find out what the cause is, in order to advise the farmer how to deal with it, and you want, therefore, a sensible, skilled, practical travelling assistant for this purpose. As the work increases many more will be wanted. On the question of salaries, if hon. Members will look at the White Paper they will see that they amount to £2,167. There is £1,500 for sub-inspectors of plant diseases, etc., non-established. I observe that that item has been reduced by £1,000 from last year, from £2,500 to £1,500, and this at a time when it is most important that we should be increasing the number of efficient inspectors under the advisory department.
The market value of a skilled man or woman who has been through a university career and has had the expense of a university career and has spent some time on a farm in order to get practical knowledge of farming, and who has also done
two or three years of research work, is much higher than these salaries. So long as these salaries are paid the nation cannot expect to draw to its service for these purposes a sufficient supply of qualified men and women. It is monstrous. The two head men ought to be in receipt of salaries like £1,200 or thereabouts as a minimum. Probably as the work goes on they will be worth much more, and the assistants ought to have comparable salaries. You cannot expect to get competent men for the present salaries. The Ministry is extraordinarily fortunate in having at the present time three or four very competent men and women who are doing the work at very unremunerative salaries. But that cannot go on as a permanent proposition.
A further important point in connection with the present position is that forestry suffers just as much as agriculture or horticulture from these pests, both insects and fungi, and there is no co-relation at present between the work in connection with forestry and the work in connection with agriculture on this subject. There ought to be. If there is a pest in the orchard it passes from the orchard tree to the forest tree, or from the forest tree to the orchard tree. What is the use of dealing with the pests on the orchard tree if nothing is done to deal with the forest trees and vice versa? That being the position, I would urge the Ministry to make the Plant Disease Branch a really strong body, increase its powers, its staff and its salaries, subordinate the inspectors to the head of the Advisory Staff, centralise the administration, giving due weight to scientific opinion, have the station in the right locality—a locality where the soil and atmosphere are right—and which is sufficiently near to London on a good line of railway to make it possible for the head man from the station to come up with a season ticket twice a week to the Ministry in London. It should also be near a good library—that is very important—and at a place where there is sufficient land for it to expand in the future as the station grows.
Rothamstead is not an ideal spot. It is not very suitable. Communications with London and the rest of the country are not good. Communications with the rest of the country are vital, because inspectors ought to be able to come readily
to the central station to discuss what they have seen and ask for advice and instruction. There is great difficulty in getting any land or houses for the staff. I speak with knowledge. I believe that it is impossible to get houses for the staff except at a price which is entirely beyond the salaries which the staff receive. I believe that Cambridge would be the best place for a central station. It would be in touch with the University and with the School of Agriculture there. You have got a library and also communication with London, and the new Institution of Plant Botany, where Professor Biffen has his place—this is important—is there. These questions cannot be discussed in water-tight compartments. You want to keep the men concerned with the other side of agriculture in close touch. If you do you will have an efficient central power. I imagine that at present it would be best to send the Department down to Harpenden without prejudice to removing it elsewhere should it be desirable later on. Let us get on with it. Increase the staff and introduce an organisation of the Department by the Inspectorate as advisory people, giving them research powers and opportunities and making a beginning with this very important work. It is sometimes true that the best way of saving money is to spend it. I believe that this is one of those occasions.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that any hon. Member will suspect me of a lack of interest in agriculture. I wish that I could have followed up some of the points which have been raised so ably by hon. Friends who have preceded me, but I desire to-night to raise the question of the fisheries—which is of extreme importance—and in regard to agricultural matters that have been raised, I will only say that I desire to align myself entirely with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy), and my right. hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Roberts), the late Food Controller, from whom agriculture, when he occupied that responsible position, always had great sympathy. I am sure that I am expressing the feelings of every agricultural Member of this House when I say how glad we were to welcome the speech of our new colleague, the hon. Member for Horncastle (Captain Hotchkin). Coming from such a well-known
agricultural district, we heard his opening speech with very great pleasure. I feel strongly on this subject of fisheries. I have put down a motion for the reduction of the vote by £100. I feel some reluctance in moving to reduce the salary of a late colleague like the present Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but I hope that the reply which my right hon. Friend will be able to give will enable me to avoid pressing this to a division. In what I am going to say, I hope that he will understand that I desire to find no personal fault with him.
Fisheries as well as agriculture has his sympathy, and he devotes his time and talents to it as far as opportunities permit, but the present position of the fishing industry is very serious. There is no industry in the country which is more independent and none which desires less to rely on Government assistance, but in present circumstances nobody can get on without Government assistance because there is so much Government control. The fishing industry feel that they are much more seriously handicapped than the agricultural industry through lack of direct representation in this House. I must apologise for my incompetence to put the case fully. Though I have some practical knowledge of fishing, I cannot pretend to the same knowledge that I have of agriculture, but I have been asked by the fishing industry to put their case on this occasion and desire to do it to the best of my ability on their behalf. The first point on which they feel strongly is this: it is quite impossible in the form of this Estimate as presented to us to obtain any idea of what is the actual situation and the actual expenditure which is allocated to the Fisheries Department. It is also impossible to know what is the actual work which the Fisheries Department is doing. When we look at this Vote that seems to be the more inexplicable because when we look at two other parts of the Civil Service Estimates, when we look at Forestry at pages 70 and 71, in those Estimates which are presented by the Board of Trade, we see a complete representation there of all separate services within a great Department, and we can see exactly what that Department costs, what is the staff employed and the work for which that staff is employed; and we can bring it even nearer than that, because on pages 131
to 138, under the Scottish Office Votes, there is a Vote for the Scottish Fisheries Department, where we have all those particulars stated, and we can ascertain exactly who are the Members of the Department, what work they are doing and what they are costing.
When we look at these Estimates it is impossible to ascertain any of those particulars. There are two Estimates that refer particularly to fisheries. There is one on page 77, headed "Fisheries Department," which contains the small number of officers, and on page 82 there is, under "Development Grant," "Fisheries Development." Those are the only separate references to fisheries. I would like to know whether a very large proportion of the work which is done for the fisheries is not scattered about among the other parts of this Estimate. It is absolutely impossible for us to trace it. For instance, I believe that the very competent head of the Fisheries Department is entered on page 74 as a Principal Assistant Secretary. I should like to have gone further into this. I could have dealt with every phase of the matter. I have all the particulars here. But time is too short, and I will not weary the Committee with it. I will only point to the general case, which is very strong, and also to one item under Fisheries Department. On page 77 we have the item, "War Bonus, £39,100. " I do not know whether that War Bonus was paid to the Fisheries Department or divided among a great many other people. It is difficult from these Estimates to form any opinion of what the Fisheries Department costs or is actually doing. The fisheries industry is very much concerned. Although my right hon. Friend says he did not think, on account of the opposition of the Scottish fishing industry, it was possible that there should be a separate Fisheries Department, the feeling of the English industry is that if we cannot get a really separate Department the nearer we can get to it the better. My right hon. Friend has a heavy task in this Debate alone in dealing with agriculture. Is it fair to the fishing industry that such little time as he can spare from agriculture is all that can be given to that most important source of our food supply?
The fishing industry, of all industries of the country, has one general feature which makes it more available as an immediate
source of invaluable food supply to this country after the War than any other industry which we possess. No importation of raw material or for any other purpose is necessary. The fish are lying in the sea all about the coasts. Further, owing to those magnificent War services of the fishermen and the fishing vessels, unlike the stock-in-trade of agriculture or manufacturing industry, the stock-in-trade and the material of the fishing industry, in the shape of fishing vessels, has actually increased rather than decreased during the War. Unfortunately, the personnel has not increased because of the heavy losses they incurred in their gallant services during the War itself, but there is still a very large and extremely capable personnel left. There are fully-equipped fishing vessels, and the supply of fish is there, and also, in the financial aspect, which is a point of great importance, any other import which comes to our shores has to be brought from some other country, and a large part of its value has to be paid to the foreign nation from which it has been bought, whereas the whole of the fish brought into our ports inures entirely to the benefit of our own country. From all points of view nothing can be more important than the fishing industry.
Everyone will agree with what has been said in the Debate during the last few nights, that the real problem which we have to face is the high cost of living, and one great cause of the difficulty is the high cost of food. Fish in ample quantity is one of the most wholesome and valuable articles of food available. The House will, I think, be surprised to hear that enormous quantities of fish, particularly trawl fish, are being landed, and—I am speaking on the authority of the Owners' Association of the trawling industry—there is being obtained for them at this moment at our ports, that is, for tens of thousands of tons of fish, a price of less than 2d. per lb. At this time of scarcity and high prices enormous supplies of food are being landed on our coasts at that low cost. But what is happening to that fish? Owing to the lack of proper transport, it is not reaching the people who want it. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what is the average price of that fish to the consumer when he gets it, and where does the difference go between
the 2d. per lb. and the 1s.—I do not think that is too high—that the consumer has to pay? Only about ten days ago, at Fleetwood, over 80 tons of prime fish, principally whiting, was actually taken out to sea and dumped overboard, because it was impossible to convey the fish to the consumer. It could not be given away; it was offered, and no one would take it, and, in order that the trawlers might resume their voyage, the 80 tons was dumped into the sea. The trawlers go into port with a limited time at their disposal, the fish is put upon the quay, and there are fish buyers there to buy it. That is the first stage. The buyers will not buy it, they cannot buy it, unless they can pass it on to the fish distributors, who will in turn pass it on to the people.
When the buyer knows that he can buy a magnificient supply of fish for 2d., and that he can sell it perhaps at a very large profit, what is the use of his making a purchase if he cannot get the fish passed on to those who will distribute it to the consumer? That is where the difficulty lies. I may be told that it is the duty of the Ministry of Transport. I deny it. It is the duty and ought to be the duty of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, to appoint officers whose task it would be to remain in constant touch with the local transport officers and to arrange for the immediate transport of large fish supplies to the consumers in our large towns. One need only turn to the example of the Scottish Fisheries Board. On page 136 of these Estimates it will be seen that the Scottish Fisheries Board has actually appointed an "Inspector of Fish Distribution." It it his duty, I imagine, to do everything possible to facilitate the distribution of fish. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend does instruct his officers generally to do what they can towards the distribution of fish, but it is obvious that those efforts have so far been unsuccessful. I do not think that officers of sufficient standing and importance are employed, officers who can go in any district, into the office of the principal representative of the Minister of Transport and demand proper facilities for the carriage of the fish. It has actually been put to me by the representatives of the fishing industry that in despair of being able, under the present organisation of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, to get that separate attention from people who make a life study of this vital industry—not
owing to the personal fault of those concerned—they are actually thinking of asking that the English fisheries shall be put under the Scottish Fisheries Board. It is rather an irony. It amuses me, because I am a farmer. It is a term of opprobrium among fishermen to call a fisherman a farmer. If anyone wishes to receive a rough reply or something rougher than a reply, it is necessary only to do that. The fishing industry feels that being tied on to the Ministry of Agriculture puts that industry in an entirely false position.
I could say a good deal more, but I have stated enough to show that it is really a very important question which wants dealing with, not in the future, but at once. I must make complaint of the time allotted to this Debate. It is very unfortunate that it should have been brought forward on an evening when it is well known that after 8.15 there will be little or no time available, owing to the intervention of private business. Not only does it prevent hon. Members from speaking, but it prevents those who think they have an important case to make from developing their arguments. I will, therefore, confine myself to one more point, and that is the question of research. The main object of research, as regards fisheries, is to maintain the supply of fish against over-fishing. I have been a Member of this House long enough to remember the long debates we had on that question on a Bill called the Undersized Fish Bill. There are two schools of thought on this question. One school says you must examine into the life history of the fish. I see from the Estimates that there is actually a department here of ichthyometry. I believe that means the measuring of fish. There is to be a very exact inquiry into the life habits of the fish; you are to examine their habits very closely indeed, you are to judge at what size those fish may safely be taken, and to pass regulations as to their "catching." There is another school which says that it is absolutely impossible, particularly in the matter of trawling, to return fish from a heavy trawl net to the sea, and to say that no man is to catch or sell a fish below a certain size. That is impracticable legislation.
There is, however, another kind of protection which I may, perhaps, christen "protection by sanctuary." I was always
an advocate of that system. There are certain areas, particularly in the North Sea, where, it is well known to every fisherman, breeding fish and small fish congregate at particular seasons. When those particular areas at those particular seasons, and in some cases at all seasons, are made into sanctuaries, just as you have a sanctuary in a deer forest, and no one is allowed to fish at those times, I believe the supply of fish in the North Sea will be secured. That has always been in dispute. But we have now, as a result of the War, more important light thrown upon the question than we could have had in any other way. My right, hon. Friend told us as a proved fact that, as a result of leaving during the War, large areas of the North Sea unfished, the boats that now fish in those waters are getting enormous catches, even two, three and four times as much as they ever got before. That proves the efficacy of sanctuary. Therefore, all this research seems to me to be of less importance than before. The really important thing now is that my right hon. Friend and his Department should make arrangements for sanctuary. Such arrangements cannot be made by this country alone; they must be international. There never was such an opportunity for making them as the present. I would urge upon my right hon. Friend the vital importance of this, for protection is absolutely necessary. Look at the position we were in when British fishermen were punished and fined and their gear confiscated for fishing in the Moray Firth, whereas Dutchmen and the fishermen of all other nations could fish there with impunity. How can fishermen be expected to put up with that sort of thing. Attention to the problem is of more practical importance than having a captain and crew upon a trawler, which is to go about the North Sea and catch fish and report how long they are, what they weigh, and scientific matters of that description. That is secondary. The other proposal is of primary and vital importance.
I will sum up the three points with which I should like my right hon. Friend to deal. The fishing industry desires to have as near as possible an independent department to deal with its business. In any case, it desires that when the next Estimates are presented they shall be assimilated in form to the other two I have mentioned, and the House and the
industry shall know who exactly are the members of the Fishing Department, and what their salaries are. As to salaries, they appear to be extraordinarily inadequate in some cases. I see that one "collector of statistics" is paid £1 a week. You cannot expect to get a good collector of statistics for that. Fewer men better paid would probably be of much more advantage to the industry. The second point is that the fish, when they get to our shores, should be brought within reach of the people who require them. My third point is the importance of preserving the fish around our shores by sanctuary arrived at by international agreement. I should like to say many other things, but the time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I am afraid I suffer from two disadvantages, one being the short time possible to give to this matter and the other that I had not the opportunity of listening to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. From the discussion there has not been displayed any indication other than a desire to help this Department in dealing with the most important matter of agriculture. Instead of having to face criticism and suggestions of curtailment of expenditure the whole tendency seems to be for greater efficiency and greater effort, which is rather different from the experience of other Departments. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made a very valuable contribution to the Debate from the point of view of the fisheries, and I think very largely established a case for the separation of that phase of the Board's work from that of agriculture. It appears to me that the Board is hardly left sufficiently free to concentrate upon those matters which are of vital importance to agriculture. That is manifested in many instances by actions of other Departments which had been most detrimental to the interests of agriculture. To-day we are suffering from a shortage of potatoes, very largely caused by the action of the Food Ministry in connection with the 1918 crop. It is lamentable that we should have to draw attention to the fact that the Board of Agriculture has not sufficient power or influence to be able to exercise its authority in regard to such a vital question as food production and the general interests of agriculture. There was one
matter with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal, and that is as to the possibility of the extension of the principle of co-operation in connection with agriculture. The small type of farmer largely predominates in this country, and if we are to continue that class of farmer it must be obvious that there must be co-operation both in the purchase of the requirements of the industry and the disposal of the crop. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what his Department are doing towards furthering that principle in agriculture. I wish to associate myself with the observations made with regard to the slaughter of cows. What is going to be the future of the industry from the point of view of meat and milk production if this excessive slaughter is permitted to go on? In the result we shall be short of milch cows and store cattle, and the industry cannot be expected to develop upon those lines which are essential for national food production if such slaughter continues.
As to the question of research I wish I had more time at my disposal to deal with it as well as with other matters affecting the industry, and particularly the attitude of the Government towards the recent Royal Commission on Agriculture. That Commission was exceedingly anxious to continue its work in regard to various subjects bearing upon research, but was not permitted to do so. It was stated that the question had been inquired into and the information was at the disposal of the Government. If that is so, how is it that we have so much complaint about the absence of adequate support to the industry in regard to this matter? it is absolutely impossible for the farming industry to develop educational and research work. That must be done by national efforts, and I hope that the Department will regard it in the light of its great importance. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the inspectors engaged by the Wages Board to enforce the Board's orders are adequate for the purpose. During the past year or so a sum of £17,000 has been obtained in arrears of wages and £12,000 has been obtained by one of the organisations, and another organisation has obtained a similar sum. While wages to that extent are being withheld from the labourers of the country one, cannot view with satisfaction the
work of the Wages Board, as might otherwise be the case. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to that matter with a view to more adequate protection being given to the labourer than appears to be the case now. I should have liked to elaborate that point, but time does not permit, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am sorry to intervene again, but, as we know, Private Business is to be taken for the rest of the evening, and I am sure the Committee will expect me to give some answer to the various points raised. I am exceedingly sorry to have to rise now when so many hon. Members desire to speak. Let me first deal with the remarks of my right hon Friend (Mr. Pretyman) as to Fisheries. I quite agree with most of what he said. I think the Votes might be so arranged as to show more clearly what is spent on the Fishery Branch, and I hope we may be able to rectify that matter on another occasion. I quite realise, also, the importance of the question of fisheries. We are most anxious to re-organise the Fisheries Branch as far as possible into a separate unit. We attach all the importance which the right hon. Gentleman does to the great value of that industry, but we are really very much handicapped by the want of power, and many of the things to which he referred we would do if we had the power. My right hon. Friend knows I have been busy in drafting a big Bill giving us larger powers, which would enable us, for example, to create those sanctuaries of which he spoke, and to give control for regulating the fisheries generally. When that Bill is presented and passed I hope our Fisheries Branch may obtain power to make it a really effective Fisheries Department of the State. With regard to the question of transport, we realise our duty in that respect, and although we have not appointed an inspector, no sooner was the Ministry of Transport formed than we got into close touch with it, and at the ports our coastal officers are constantly engaged in making arrangements for the transport of fish. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties which arise from want of wagons and locomotives and other obstacles. I can assure him we have been enabled to move fish rapidly on many occasions when without our assistance that fish would have gone bad. With
regard to prices, I cannot tell the exact figure, as the retail prices vary from day to day. I do not think the figure he gave was quite correct. I am informed that the lowest price at which fish came to the coast was 4d. in a number of markets.

Mr. PRETYMAN: The Fishowners' Association informed me that the price for trawl fish landed at the port was three halfpence per pound, and I added a halfpenny to that.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no information to that effect, but in any case we are not the Ministry engaged in controlling prices. What I want to see is the complete decontrol of the fishing industry at present. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the points he mentioned will have my most careful consideration, and I agree with him as to the desirability of encouraging this industry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:: Are we taking any international action with regard to the North Sea? Are we continuing negotiations with other countries which remained in abeyance during the War?

8.0 P.M.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They are in train. Reference was made to the way in which we deal with plant diseases, and I entirely agree with the object mentioned by the hon. Member who dealt with the matter. We have established a branch with an officer at its head who is no longer only advisory, but is also an executive officer and is in charge of all the work dealing with plant diseases. He has under him an inspectorate. In reply to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. R. Smith), co-operation in agriculture is really going ahead, it is taking hold. We have done all we can by supporting the Agricultural Organisation Society, which has really, under the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott), made a distinct advance and is teaching the farmers the value of co-operation. That body, which has been subsidised by the State, is now standing much more on its own basis, and I think it will be entirely standing on its own basis financially in three or four years' time. In the meantime, the number of new societies that are being formed and effectively working is growing every day, with the greatest possible good results to the industry generally.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) pointed to the fact that the figure for salaries at the Ministry was up. That is true, and it is due to the increases made by way of war bonuses. The number of employés is down by 42, and it would have been down by a great many more had it not been for the enormous work of land settlement that we have had to undertake. He asked how far corn land had been put back to grass. I cannot give any definite figures, but we shall get our agricultural returns in June. I am afraid the process is going on, but we are doing all we can to stop it. He also spoke about reclamation, and I think the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) also spoke about that. We were asked after the Armistice if we would undertake reclamation on a large scale, chiefly for the purpose of finding work for unemployed ex-soldiers, and we were granted money for the purpose. We found, however—it was brought to our notice by the Ministry of Labour—that unemployment was much less than had been anticipated, and in the meantime we found that the schemes of reclamation already undertaken were not going to be economically successful. The chief one, which we are still carrying on was at Wainfleet, on the Wash, where we are reclaiming a stretch of land which will have the advantage that it will march with one of our own farm settlements, but there is a considerable loss upon it. The land will not be as valuable by any means as it has cost to reclaim, and in the present state of our finances, although I agree there is much land, both foreshore and sandy wastes on heaths, that might be reclaimed in various parts of the country, we cannot undertake large uneconomical attempts of this sort as things stand at the present time. We think it would be a waste of money which would not be justifiable in the present circumstances.
In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy), who talked about the Wages Board and how far its recommendations were taken into consideration when the Government fixed maximum prices of wheat, when the recent decision was taken for prices of the 1920 crop we took into consideration the anticipated rise in wages which has since taken place, and
I can only say that if we have again to make any alteration on a future occasion in the maximum prices we shall take the whole of the cost of production into account, and, of course, wages are a very important element in that cost of production. He also asked about the proposed importation of Friesland cattle. I wish to say emphatically that we do not propose to go back in any way upon our general principle that cattle are not to be admitted from abroad. We have not the slightest intention of admitting store cattle from Canada or anywhere else, but here is a breed which is not a new breed in this country, because it exists already, a breed with an extraordinarily high milking capacity, amounting to 2,000 gallons in certain cases, and very high in all cases. The Astor Milk Committee recommended that more Friesians should be imported with a view to increasing the milk supply of this country. The breed is a small one; it is based upon a very small strain. We only propose to admit at the outside 100, and all the progeny of very remarkable animals, yielding not less than 2,000 gallons. I do not think we shall find it very easy to find them, but if they do come they will come under such stringent conditions that I feel certain there can be no fear of the importation of disease into the country, but if we can strengthen a valuable breed of that sort by an importation under strict regulations, it seems to me we are perfectly right to encourage it. An hon. Member mentioned the question of transport in agricultural districts. Of course, the Ministry of Transport is the supreme authority, but what we have done is this. We have ourselves made investigations into something like 200 schemes of improved transport in agricultural districts. We have put up those we thought best to the Ministry of Transport, we have closely investigated some of them with the Ministry of Transport, and I hope that some good results may ensue. But beyond conducting investigations ourselves and making recommendations we cannot go. It rests with them to decide what schemes shall go forward and what schemes shall not, and, of course, they have to be guided largely by the considerations of whether they will be economical or not, and I am sorry to say that at the present time the cost of running railways, and especially the fact that
agricultural produce is carried at a rather lower rate than some other produce, makes it difficult to see how many schemes which rely exclusively on agricultural transport can be made to pay. We shall not cease to urge on the Ministry of Transport the desirability of improving transport in the country districts, either by light railways or by motor services or something of that sort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) and my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. R. Smith) talked about the slaughter of calves. We have had this question over and over again during the War, and great fears have been expressed that our dairy herds would be diminished and that the number of cattle in the country would show a great diminution. That has not been the case up-to-date, and up to the last figures, published last June, notwithstanding the apparent excessive slaughter of calves, the number of head of cattle in the country did not show any diminution, but rather an increase. I believe there has been an extra amount of slaughter lately, and I am a little bit alarmed myself as to what the next set of figures may show. But it seems to me that orders made as a rule have proved to be ineffective. I think, however, the best remedy will be when all meat is decontrolled, as it will be on July 4th this year. By then I hope the matter will right itself and that the excessive demand for veal which exists at the present time will no longer prevail. At all events, I think the present remedy for the excessive slaughter of calves is the decontrol of meat, which will take place very shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon also asked why we had increased the item for Tuberculosis in Cattle. I can explain that very shortly. In 1914 the Milk and Dairies Act was passed, and at the same time the Tuberculosis Order was issued by the Board of Agriculture to come into operation immediately that the Milk and Dairies Act came into operation. That Act and that Order were suspended during the War We believe it is possible that the Milk and Dairies Act may be brought into operation in the present financial year, and in that case we must also bring into operation the Tuberculosis Order, which provides compensation to owners of stock who suffer in consequence of the provision of the Milk and Dairies Act. Therefore,
in view of the fact that we may have to bring that Order into operation, we have put a figure in the Estimate to cover the possible expense of compensation.
I know there are many more Members who would wish to speak in this Debate. So far as I am personally concerned, I did not know there was going to be long private business to-night, and it is not the fault of the Ministry of Agriculture that this Debate has been curtailed. At the same time, it is from our point of view a matter of real urgency that we should get the Vote in Committee this evening, because the Vote contains an item of £250,000, Treasury contribution to the sugar beet scheme, and unless this Vote is carried in Committee to- night, that money cannot be granted, and the whole scheme will be held up, which means delay in getting on with the work, and will very likely defeat the whole scheme. But if the Committee will give us the Vote now—and I must ask for it now, because there may be no time at all after the private business—the Government will be quite prepared, if representations are made to them in the usual way, to give half a day at an early date for the Report stage, and that will enable those speakers, who were unable to catch your eye this evening, to make their speeches and observations on that occasion, which I hope will be at an early date. In view of the urgency of getting this particular item, and in view of the fact that there is no way of putting one item separately from another, I do appeal to the Committee to give me this Vote now.

Mr. G. THORNE: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, representing what I believe to be the general desire, the Vote will now be granted on the clear understanding asked for by the Opposition, that half a day will be granted for further consideration on the Report stage. In those circumstances, I hope the Committee will agree to the Vote.

Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave,' withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.— [By Order.]

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I beg to move,
 That, this House having considered the Special Report made to them on the 10th March last by the Select Committee on Standing Orders on the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Petition for Bill, it be resolved that Standing Order 22 be dispensed with in respect of the Bill with a view to the consideration of the proposals thereof by any Committee of this House to which the Bill may be referred.
On 10th March the Select Committee on Standing Orders was given leave to bring up a special Report, which read as follows:—
That in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Petition for Bill, the principle embodied in Standing Order 22 is so important that the Committee do not feel justified in this case in exercising their discretion in regard to its suspension under Standing Order 92 without direction from the House.
The Special Report was laid upon the Table, and I now have pleasure in moving the Motion in my name. It is unnecessary for me to discuss the merits or demerits of any of the proposals contained in the Bill, for if the House passes the Resolution, the proposals in the Bill will be considered by a Committee of the House, and those that are good will be passed and those that are bad will be thrown out. I desire rather to deal with the principles embodied in Standing Order 22, and to point out why I hope the House will suspend its operation so far as this Bill is concerned, realising that the exigencies of the moment, largely produced by the War, require prompt action, and knowing that the House itself, when dealing with the matter, will safeguard the rights of the minorities. Standing Order 22 is known to most of us who live in London, but it is not known to some of those who reside in the provinces, and I should like to read it to the House:
In cases of Bills to authorise the laying down of a tramway, the promoters shall obtain the consent of the local authority of the district or districts through which it is proposed to construct such tramway, and where in any district there is a road authority distinct from the local authority the consent of such road authority shall also be necessary in any case where power is sought to break up any road, subject to the jurisdiction of such road authority. For the purposes of this Order, in England, the local
and road authorities shall be the local and road authorities for the purposes of 'The Tramways Act, 1870, except that in the case of a rural district in England the rural district council shall be deemed to be the local authority, and in Ireland the local and road authorities shall be the district council and the county councils respectively. Provided that where it is proposed to lay down a continuous line of tramway in two or more districts, and any local or road authority having jurisdiction in any such districts does not consent thereto, the consents of the local and road authority, or the local and road authorities having jurisdiction over two-thirds of the length of such proposed line of tramway, shall be deemed to be sufficient.
The reason for the passing of this Standing Order seems to have been that Part I of the Tramways Act of 1870 provides for the construction of tramways under Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, subject to the consent of the local and road authorities. It was anticipated, when the Act was passed, that tramway promotions would generally be by Provisional Order of the Board of Trade, to save expense, but, in the words of a President of the Board of Trade, who introduced the Tramways Act;
it was not intended to shut out the access to Parliament to those who might think proper to resort to promotion by Private Bill, but in such cases, if promoters obtained private Acts, they would be subject to the Clauses of the general Bill.
There was, however, no provision in the Tramways Act applying the veto of the local and road authorities to promotion by Private Bill, and private promoters, in order to avoid the veto, began to seek powers in this manner. The Standing Order was therefore passed to supplement the Tramways Act by extending the veto of local and road authorities from promotions of tramways by Provisional Order to promotion of tramways by Private Bill. The Standing Order was necessary in those days, so far as London was concerned, for tramways were promoted by individuals and companies, and not, like to-day, by a responsible public authority representing the inhabitants. Since 1900 the majority of the inhabitants of the Administrative County of London, acting through their representatives on the London County Council, have gone upon the principle of owning and working the tramways within their area. To-day the London County Council owns and work 150 miles of tramways, and last year carried 685,000,000 passengers. The local
authority in the Administrative County of London, outside the City, is the London County Council, and the road authorities are the twenty eight metropolitan borough councils. The City Corporation is the local and road authority in respect of the City. Thus, two local and twenty-nine road authorities were set up by the Tramways Act, and they all now enjoy the privilege of Standing Order No. 22.
The London County Council, in promoting tramways, requires to obtain the consent of the City Corporation should the tramways enter the city limits, and of each of the 28 road authorities through whose area the tramways run, unless two-thirds or more of the length of the proposed tramway is within the area of the road authority or road authorities who are willing to give their consent. Generally speaking, without the consent of each road authority concerned, no proposal for new tramways from the London County Council can come before Parliament. I would remind the House that the City of London and the 28 metropolitan boroughs have representatives on the London County Council, and that any tramway bill thus put forward by the London County Council is for the benefit of London as a whole.

Sir C. HANSON: May I rise to a point of Order. The City of London has no representative on the London County Council when tramway matters are considered.

Sir S. BENN: I stand corrected. The veto provided in Standing Order 22 has been condemned by the Royal Commission and by the Select Committee of this House, but its abolition is not now being asked for. We only ask for it to be suspended while the Tramway Bill of this year is before the House. The Royal Commission on London traffic, which sat in 1903–1905, stated in their Report:
It is unreasonable that one portion of a district should be in a position to put a stop to the construction of a general system of tramways required for the public benefit without even allowing the case to be presented for the consideration of Parliament. They recommend that the 'veto' provided for by Standing Order 22 should be abolished, and that local and road authorities should have a locus standi to appear before the new Traffic Board proposed by the Commission, and before Parliament in opposition to any tramway scheme within their district.
The Select Committee on Motor Traffic in 1912–13, which sat from December to April, under the Chairmanship of Sir George Toulmin, reported:
The Corporation of the City of London objects to the construction of tramways in the City on the grounds that the streets in the City, with certain small exceptions, are unsuitable for tramways. All the Metropolitan Borough Councils have the right of veto. Some of these oppose the construction of tramways altogether and so impose a check on the development of through tramway services. Others take advantage of their powers to negotiate with the London County Council for road widenings and other improvements not always, it is claimed, made necessary solely by the tramway scheme. The veto was granted to local authorities to prevent them being harassed with speculative schemes promoted by private interests. It was not at that time contemplated that there would be a central municipal authority which would become the sole tramways promoter in London. Now that the London County Council has entire control of the tramways in the County of London, the same check is no longer necessary to safeguard public interests. But some Measure is required to ensure that local opinion has due weight given to it.…Any reasonable objection to the abolition of the veto should disappear if provision were made for the local authorities to state their views concerning any proposed tramway scheme to an independent and impartial body such as the new traffic branch suggested below as a preliminary to the hearing before Committee (or a Joint Committee) of the Houses of Parliament.
The Select Committee on Transport, which sat last year under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Kennedy Jones), sated:
The London County Council possesses the right to operate tramways, but cannot develop its system without express Parliamentary sanction. It finds that while there is no traffic authority to co-ordinate or direct and few authorities willing to put forth individual energy in the provision of public transport, there are always many to take up a position which might be helpful but which is usually the reverse. First, the City with its right of veto; then the London and the greater London boroughs who have the same rights conferred upon them by Parliamentary Standing Order 22.… While the outer urban bodies have to be considered.… They do not originate but they can veto or exact specific conditions from those who provide transport.
There is a foot-note to this paragraph, and in this foot-note the Committee state:
The Bill of the London County Council promoted this Session in Parliament for the linking up of the north and south tramways, which was strongly recommended by the
Royal Commission of 1905, was rejected by the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons because of the fact that the local authorities concerned had vetoed its promotion under Standing Order 22.
The Resolution which I have moved does not ask for the abolition of the veto. It merely asks for its suspension so far as the consideration by the House of the present Tramways Bill is concerned, and asks for it under circumstances which I know are realised by hon. Members. The circumstances are national. We are suffering from a lack of houses. We know that many men and women who work in London have to get houses outside the city. We know that at the present they have got to be brought to their work. We know that cheap transportation and quick is one of the things to be aimed at. Everyone knows that there is congestion at the moment. The people of London, acting through their representatives on the London County Council, are ready to improve and increase the tramway service, and have put forward the Bill for that purpose. It is tied up because certain borough councils object to their streets being used for the benefit of the county as a whole. I cannot believe that this House, realising the difficulties, is unwilling to have the Bill considered by its own Committee and the proposals investigated; those proposals which are, it is considered, desirable to pass, passed; and those which may be considered not useful thrown out. I hope very much that this House will see its way to suspend Standing Order 22, and allow the Bill to be brought before a Committee of the House and fully discussed.

Mr. GILBERT: I beg leave to Second the Motion. My reason for so doing is that I am a member of the London County Council, and I have for some considerable years taken a great interest in the question of London traffic. Since I came to this House I have followed with interest this question, and I served on the Committee on London Traffic in 1919. In Seconding this Motion, I appeal to the House to carry it in order that we may put the London County Council, which is the largest municipal authority in the country, and which is the tramway authority for London, in the same position as any other tramway authority in our large provincial towns. The hon. Member who moved this Motion referred
to the Standing Order affecting this question. That Standing Order was passed in the year 1872, nearly 48 years ago, and I suggest to the House that a Standing Order passed so long ago, when tramways were in their infancy, and just beginning to be laid down in this country, is not one which should apply in the year 1920. I suggest that the subject of tramways is a very burning question at the present moment.
Everybody who has considered London traffic from any point of view must admit that to-day probably the most urgent question in London, next to housing, is that of travelling, whether you take railways, tubes, tramways or omnibuses. In view of the figures placed before the Committee on London Traffic, which showed the great increase of travelling amongst the population of London and greater London, I suggest that it is very desirable that this House should, in every way it can, allow facilities for travelling in London to be increased, whether in the form of tramways, tubes, railways, or any other method. The London County Council are asking in this Bill that they shall be placed in exactly the same position as the tramways authorities in Manchester, Glasgow, or any other large provincial city. If the representatives of a large provincial city came to this House for permission to lay tramways, you would find that particular authority was its own road authority within the area in which they desired to construct the tram- ways. We in London have never been in that position, and the people who criticise the action of the London County Council in regard to its tramways and the non-development of traffic facilities do not realise, unless they have had practical experience of the difficulties of the County Council in carrying out tramway schemes, what are those difficulties.
May I give a brief instance? Take the case of the tramways which run along the Embankment outside this House to Woolwich through very populous districts and over a long route. Before the County Council could construct those tramways we had to get the consent of no less than seven road authorities through which those tramways were constructed. We had also to obtain the consent of the Government authorities at Greenwich, where the Observatory is situated, to the
electrical equipment. I put this point specially to provincial Members who may be members of provincial county councils or town councils where tramways are running, and where corporations and councils have made a great success of their tramways, to show the enormous difficulties we have had in London in carrying our tramways to a successful issue. This Bill to which the Standing Order applies is one promoted by the London County Council. It contains 16 proposals, and, roughly, the mileage of them all is 38 miles of tramways. I do not propose to deal with any of the particular schemes of this Bill. I do not think it is my duty, and I respectfully suggest that it is not the duty of the House to-night, to criticise particular schemes in this Bill. No doubt many hon. Members have objections to a particular scheme, but all we are asking for by the suspension of this Standing Order is that our Bill may be sent to a Committee upstairs, where those who have objections may be heard, and then the Committee may decide any particular scheme on its merits. If that is not done, the tramway development of London will be turned down, not because you can put up a case against all the schemes, or any particular scheme, but because of a Standing Order passed in 1872, which prevents this Bill going before a Select Committee in order that the case for it may be fairly judged by a Committee of Members of this House.
A Whip has been issued against this Bill, and it is signed by eight of my London colleagues and some others outside. Personally, I very much regret that the London Members, on the tramway question, have not been able to unite as we did on some other London traffic problems. On London traffic questions last year and the Tube Bill this year, hon. Members on both sides, representing London constituencies, have been able to work amicably together, and as one who took part in those meetings, I regret that my London colleagues do not see eye to eye with me on this question, and that in the interests of traffic generally we cannot put up a united case before this House, as we have done on some other questions. May I remind the House of one historical occasion when there was a great fight on a Tramway Bill in this House. Older hon. Members will recollect the fight put up here on the over-
bridge tramways, bringing them over Westminster Bridge along the Embankment to Blackfriars Bridge. That question was fought year in and year out in this House, and in 1905 the Division in this House was equal on the particular Bill of that Session, and Mr. Speaker gave his casting vote in favour of the Bill, with the result, that the measure was allowed to go before a Committee upstairs.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that Mr. Speaker gave his casting vote, not because he was in favour of the scheme, but simply because it was the custom of the House that when the voting is equal hon. Members should have another opportunity of deciding the question.

Mr. GILBERT: I was not in any way suggesting that Mr. Speaker gave a vote for the Bill because he was in favour of it, but I was trying to point out that if the Bill had not been carried in this House we should not have got the measure before a Committee upstairs, and that was the only point which I was trying to make. After a precedent like that, I think if this Bill is allowed to go upstairs to a Committee, the London County Council will make out such a good case for it that we shall be able to pass the Bill, or at any rate the greater part of it. No doubt we shall be told by the opponents of this Bill that tramways are obsolete, and that is one reason why we should not have any more of them. I do not think that is correct. In all the evidence I have been able to obtain—and I have given the question very careful study for some years—if you are going to have road systems of traction, and you have to deal with a huge population where there are great crowds to be moved, I do not know any method that can deal with such a problem better than tramways. As regards the cost of carrying people, the best figures I have been able to obtain show that the tramways are much the best method of carrying passengers. The cost of working London County Council trams per passenger in 1919–20 (to 31st March, 1920) was l.27d., while the cost for buses in the year 1919, up to December of that year, was 1.95d. Buses do not carry any workmen at cheap fares, and in addition to that the figures for the tramway year included three months more of the period when wages were high, so that I think these figures are very much in
favour of tramways, because if you add those three months to 1920 it works out an increase in the cost of running the buses. We are faced with this problem in London, that in certain areas you have an immense local traffic to bring into the centre in the morning and to take back at night, and anybody who has studied this question at all must admit that the buses do not deal with that particular phase of the London traffic problem. The trams are better able to deal with the crowded traffic during the crush hours than are the omnibuses, even if they could put sufficient omnibuses on to deal with them. May I say what we run in London on the tramway mileage? We run on the London County Council trams an average of ten cars per mile, which provide seating for 780 persons. The buses only run seven buses per mile, and provide for but 238 passengers. To equal the number provided for by the trams 23 buses would be required. Seven trams provide 546 seats.
I suggest to hon. Members who are interested in this traffic question that if they watched this problem in the morning when the crowds are being brought into the centre and in the evening when they are being taken to the suburbs, they must admit that at the present time the best method of dealing with the traffic is the tramway in preference to the omnibus. We in London suffer very severely from not having a sufficient mileage of traffic, owing to this Standing Order being brought into operation against a great many tramway schemes promoted by the London County Council. The consequence is that the development of tramways in London is very much behind that in provincial cities. The number of miles per one hundred thousand inhabitants is in Leeds 12.2;, Manchester 12.0;, in Newcastle 10.7, in Liverpool 9.3;, in Glasgow 8.6; and in Birmingham 7.7, while in London it is 4.6. It seems to me that in the capital city of the Empire, where, in addition to the local traffic, you have to deal every day in ordinary times with an enormous visitor traffic, we ought to encourage in every way we can any form of vehicular traffic able to help in dealing with this problem. We in London have been extremely badly placed as regards traffic facilities. Hon. Members who represent London constituencies, and especially suburban constituencies,
know that in a good many of the suburbs the railway companies during the War shut up a number of stations. Some of those stations have been re-opened since, some have not. On the Transport Committee in 1918 Sir Francis Dent, the then General Manager of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, was asked a question as to the closing of the suburban railway stations, as a result of which a very large amount of suburban traffic was thrown on to the trams and on to the tube railways, where they existed. Sir Francis was then a member of the Railway Executive Committee, and in replying to the question, he said:
The difficulty which the South Eastern and Chatham Railway were in was that they at very great expense in the early days of railways constructed a means for bringing suburban people into London. It was not the right means. The right means for bringing people into London short distances was by tramway. You know how long it took for London to realise the necessity for a system of electric trams. Now they have got that system—the paying part—we are left with the unpaying part—that is, the rush in the morning and evening. The real way of carrying traffic is by tramway, and we are now in the unfortunate position that we made that accommodation which is not now wanted.
A still further inquiry was put to him as to the possibility after the War of still further improving the local London traffic, and, in reply, he said:
My own opinion is that short-distance local traffic should find its proper means of passage by tramway.
I think the opinions of a well-known railway manager like Sir Francis Dent are important and well worth the consideration of this House. If that is so, I again respectfully suggest that, in view of an opinion like that, this proposal of the London County Council to extend their tramways should be allowed to be examined into by a Committee upstairs and this Standing Order should be suspended so that that may be done. I have been pressing recently for the re-opening of some of these stations in South London. The other day—on the 29th March—I put a question to the Minister for Transport on the subject and he gave me the following answer:—
I am still not in a position to add anything to the reply given on the 1st March. The services in question are non-remunerative and materially restrict and negative the running of other long distance services, and the L.C.C. trams offer an alternative service. Pending a Report by the Advisory Com-
mittee on London Traffic, it is not proposed to open these stations.""—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1920, col. 860, Vol. 127.]
Again, I say in view of an opinion like that I think the House might very properly agree to the suspension of the Standing Order and allow this Bill to be sent to a Committee upstairs. There is very little else I want to say. I may mention that three of the London borough councils, three large borough councils, are in favour of our proposal. Wandsworth Borough Council, which covers a very large area, is in favour of it, and passed a resolution on the 15th of October last asking for the removal of this veto. Hammersmith, another large borough council, also covering a big area, passed a similar resolution on the 29th of October, while Islington Borough Council passed one on the 8th January.

Sir F. BANBURY: What about the City?

Mr. GILBERT: I will leave it to the right hon. Baronet himself to deal with that. I am sure he is quite able to take care of the City.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: How many borough councils concerned are against the proposal?

Mr. GILBERT: I will leave it to the hon. Member to deal with that.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that fourteen out of seventeen are against it?

Mr. GILBERT: I am quite certain the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich is capable of putting his case before the House. I submit I am entitled to quote the borough councils who are in favour of the suspension of the Standing Order, and I propose to leave it to hon. Members who are opposed to quote the borough councils who have passed resolutions the other way. I think that we in London, with all the difficulties we have had in constructing and running tramways, have done exceedingly well in regard to the tramways we have run. It is only on the fringe of London that we are entitled to run tramways; the centre, which is really the traffic gold-mine, is not touched at all, or only to a small extent, by the tramways of the London County Council. During the time we have operated tramways in London we have spent something like £14,000,000 on them. Of that we have repaid something like £5,000,000 out
of the earnings of the tramways, besides interest and maintenance, and besides the cost of maintaining the whole of the centre of the road in the districts where our 150 miles of tramways run. That part of the road is largely used by other road traffic as well. In addition we pay a considerable amount towards local rates, which goes to the benefit of the London ratepayer. As a member of the London County Council for some years, I ask the House to give the Council the same facilities and justice as are given to other tramway authorities in the country, which are their own road authorities, and the same facilities which would be given to a Tube Railway Bill, or a suburban or any other railway Bill dealing with London. The other week the London Tube Fares Bill was sent to a Committee, and we ask the same for this Bill, and shall be prepared to abide by the decision of the Committee. There are something like 5,000,000 Londoners to whom trams are part of their daily life, and for very many of whom they are the only method of getting backwards and forwards to their business. I do not think this question has been before this House of Commons previously, and I ask the House to treat it on broad lines, and let us take the Bill before a Committee upstairs and put our case to the best of our ability.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "Bill" ["Petition for Bill"] to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
 declines to dispense with compliance with Standing Order 22 requiring the consent of the local or road authority to the laying down of any tramway in the area of such authority on the ground that such dispensation deprives such authority of the control of its roads whilst providing no contribution to the maintenance of such parts thereof as are not occupied by the tramway and at the same time limiting the jurisdiction of such local or road authority in the management and control of their area.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Gilbert) on his speech in support of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Sir Shirley Benn). If, however, there is any person liable to make mistakes, it is the enthusiast—the devoted parent that refuses to see the faults of his children. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Southwark has given
a number of particulars and statistics, and has made various comparisons, but at the same time he has shut the eye of his mind to the many difficulties which the London County Council themselves have created in their treatment of the boroughs in years gone by in relation to this matter. Those who represent the boroughs here will be able to answer him most completely on the various points to which he has called attention. He has mentioned that certain boroughs have passed resolutions, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) is instructed to oppose the Bill. That is rather in conflict with the resolution passed by the borough council in support of it, and it calls for further inquiry. Those three councils are presumably not directly interested in the proposals contained in the Bill of the London County Council. No wonder they have passed abstract resolutions in its favour. They have as much tramway as they can very well take, and it is difficult to imagine that any one of them would lay down additional lines. I think, however, that at this moment, when the nation is overburdened with debt, it is the duty of all of us here to do the best we can to check expenditure. If we are blamed for not having an effectual check upon Imperial expenditure by the Government, at least we can say, "Do not sanction first of all the woeful waste of money which must take place upstairs when 80 petitioners, appearing by counsel, will have to be heard against this Bill if it is sent there." It is hardly conceivable that any Select Committee ever got together in this House could pass proposals of such a character as those in this Bill. We are asked to say that because this Standing Order, requiring the consent of the Road Authorities, was passed in 1872, therefore it is obsolete and ought not to have effect in its full meaning. I should have thought the argument was directly the contrary. The Standing Orders of this House have been revised again and again, and presently I am going to call attention to two Orders, Nos. 145a and 150, which have been put in, or, at any rate, amended, within the last few months, to deal with the condition of things which has been brought about by the establishment of the Ministry of
Transport. It is obvious. Mr. Speaker, that the Standing Orders of this House are under your eye, or the eye of your permanent officials, and are constantly brought up to date, yet this obsolete Order is continued deliberately and is a living force to-day as it was in 1872.
9.0 P.M.
The London County Council always seems to forget that there are other bodies in the government of London besides itself. I am not complaining of that; I am only saying that there does appear to be a lack of sympathy and a want of consideration on the part of the London County Council—ever throwing out its tentacles like an octopus for more and more power—for those other bodies that are working in the same area and dealing with matters which, though certainly different, are cognate matters, such as health, housing, and so forth. It has also lived on very evil terms with its neighbours. If you were to ask, you would find no good opinion of it in the county whose views I am now expressing, namely, Middlesex, of which the greater part of London to-day consists; and that is also the case with Surrey, Kent, Herts and Essex. We are asked to let this Bill go upstairs, and the complaint is made that the Standing Order requires this consent. Why should it not? Although it is well known that the London County Council, and all tramway authorities, are bound to maintain and repair the track and 18 inches on either side, it is not generally remembered that what are known as the "haunches" of the road have to be repaired by the road authority, be it the borough council or the urban council. Most persons fail to realise that the presence of fixed tramway rails in the centre of our great London roads forces the traffic on to the haunches. That has been given in evidence again and again by the surveyors of those authorities who have had to spend money in this way, and the result of that pulling on and off and the driving of the traffic on to the haunches has caused those haunches to be unduly worn, and the result is that very large sums of money have to be spent. That is one of the reasons why these authorities ought still to be permitted to have the right to say whether or not their consent should be vital and the Standing Order should be continued. The hon. Member (Mr. Gilbert) has complained that London by reason of this Standing Order has been
cooped up into an area of four miles of tramway workings, whereas Leeds and Manchester have approximately 12 each. The answer is very easily given. London, the more ancient of all, has had its suburbs spring up at a time when road making, and the width of roads were not realised, and the result is that difficulties are met with in London and suburbs to a very much greater extent than you would find in the country round large provincial towns which have only been developed in the course of the last 30 or 35 years. The result is that London widenings have not been able to be made on the ground of expense. It seems that the London County Council has never turned its mind to the over-head trolley system, what is called the trackless trolley system, getting their power from an electric wire and yet having it attached to their vehicles in such a way that a vehicle does not run upon a definite fixed line, but is able to move about the road and accommodate itself to the traffic on the road for the time being.

Sir SHIRLEY BENN: That matter came up for consideration, and it was carefully discussed and turned down.

Sir H. NIELD: Turned down because the County Council wants what it thinks for the time being is best, regardless of expense. That is the one thing that never concerns the London County Council, or they would not come year after year to this House with their chimerical Bills, spending vast sums of money in Parliamentary expenses which are, for the most part, if not wholly, lost to the ratepayers. I am suggesting that this House should persuade them to a more sober and more frugal vehicle. The motor omnibus has come to stay. It needs no lines to run upon. It needs no extensive construction, it needs no obstruction of the streets, and in conveys a very large number of persons. I am not prepared to go into the comparison of cost at present. It is not a great deal of difference, though I appreciate there is a difference if the information that has come to us is strictly limited to the two classes of vehicles, and on the supposition that the tramways wholly belong to the county of London, because the county of Middlesex has tramways which run through into the county of London, and I can tell the House some very painful things about the difficulties which Middlesex underwent before they
could get running powers conceded to them in the county of London. It was not at all a sisterly attitude to help forward this great idea of transporting the people of London. I invite hon. Members who know anything of the North of London to go and see that, notwithstanding the running powers which have been grudgingly conceded to Middlesex by the London County Council, whereby some of their cars are permitted to go through the county of London down to the base of the Hampstead Road, where the Euston Road crosses and Tottenham Court Road begins—notwithstanding that through service, let them go and watch between 6 and 9 o'clock at that portion of the Seven Sisters Road by Finsbury Park, where the fuller system of the Middlesex county trams used to begin, and now, thanks to the attitude of London, are postponed to the Manor House, some quarter of a mile away, so that a man must now change his tram if he wants to go into the Middlesex area and is not on a through tram. If you watch those trams as they come to the terminus, you will see a fight for seats, especially on wet nights, which will equal a football match in any part of the country. That ought not to be permitted, and if London had been willing to do her part in conjunction with her sister county, every tram would be a through tram, and there would be little or no difficulty.
But is it necessary to put the public authorities to all the expense of going upstairs and asking the Committee to hear these 80 petitions against? My hon. Friend (Sir Shirley Benn) referred again and again to what he was using as a condemnation of the Standing Order, or rather the right of veto by various bodies which have sat from time to time. But I think he will admit that everyone of those phrases of condemnation contained at the end a reference to a body to be set up which should hold the scales equally between all parties. That is exactly the position of those of us who oppose this Bill to-day. This veto ought not to be dispensed with and the Standing Order ought not to be relaxed until there is a body, which I hope is now in course of formation and will soon be set up by the Ministry of Transport, which is a far more appropriate body as a public department than we have ever had before. If we have a London Traffic Board I am quite content, and I believe everyone else
is, to leave this question to be determined by that independent body.
The hon. Member (Mr. Kennedy Jones) has taken an extraordinary and exceptional interest in this question of London traffic. He has been chairman of one Committee and also chairman of the Select Committee of the House. He writes to me under to-day's date:
I have, unfortunately, a meeting to-night at West Hornsey which I must attend, and I shall therefore not be present when the discussion arises on Shirley Benn's Motion. I, as you know, would oppose it if I were present, not so much on the ground that I am against the veto of local authorities, but because I am convinced from the study of traffic conditions in London it must remain as it is until the whole subject can be dealt with under the auspices of one single traffic authority. I do hope that this point will be put forward in the course of the Debate.
If we look at the evidence which was given before the Commission set up as far back as 1904, in the minutes of evidence you find that some of the most experienced men in the whole of London, public officials of municipalities, were called to give evidence and I challenge my hon. Friend to deny or to maintain that the statement should be qualified that throughout the whole of that expert evidence one view was given, namely, that this veto should be retained until there was a body which could properly arbitrate and settle these matters. I am content to confine my observations to a reply given by a very distinguished gentleman, Mr. Leete, the Town Clerk of Kensington. He was asked
Would the Kensington Borough Council be willing to let the question of the expediency of laying down a tramway go before a competent and impartial tribunal, or do they insist on retaining the veto in their hands?
The answer, which I think will suffice for all purposes, was:
I am bound to say that, while we do not say that there is any necessity for the removal of the veto, if you had a competent and impartial tribunal, certainly a tribunal on which the borough councils would be represented, then I think it is quite possible that the councils would consent to that tribunal being made the authority to say whether a scheme should go forward as far as Parliament or not.
I cite that as an illustration, and I say that it is to be found again and again. It is to be found in evidence on other occasions, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Sir Shirley Benn)
said, it has always been accompanied by the statement that you should have an independent authority. A similar view is repeated in the Committee's Report published this year, Command Paper 636, under the heading "London Traffic Authority." The Commission report as follows:
Nor do the Advisory Committee think that there should be any adverse opinion on the question of powers. These represent mainly the concentration in the hands of one authority of powers already vested in several Departments of State. With minor exceptions, they leave unchanged the powers of local authorities as they exist to-day. If an instance is wanted, the abolition of the veto of local authorities Standing Order No. 22 may be quoted. The veto of local authorities has been condemned by every body set up to investigate traffic conditions, and we recommend that it be abolished so far as the great London area is concerned, since the establishment of a traffic authority with full powers and responsibilities will ensure that all proposals for tramways and tramway extensions are thoroughly investigated and considered from the point of view of the traffic requirements of London as a whole, due regard being paid also to the interests of particular districts.
There you have the imprimatur of the last of the Committees in favour of this veto being dispensed with only when there be an authority to take its place, and a determining authority as between the interests of the promoters of the scheme on the one hand and of the local authority on the other. I desire to call attention to two Standing Orders which, it has been suggested, would give protection to those who object to dispensing with the veto. I venture to think that neither the one nor the other has any real application. It is suggested that Standing Order 145A would give all the protection necessary to the local authorities:
In the case of any Bill relating to a railway, tramway … seeking powers to levy tolls, rates, or duties in excess of those already authorised for that undertaking, or usually authorised in previous years for like undertakings, the Bill shall not be reported by the Committee until a report from the Ministry of Transport on the powers so sought has been laid before the Committee, and the Committee shall report specially to the House in what manner the recommendations or observations in the report of the Ministry of Transport, and also in what manner the Clauses of the Bill relating to the powers so sought have been dealt with by the Committee.
How in the world can that be said to give any power at all over the question of route or method, or whether it is to be a trackless trolley system, motor omni-
buses or anything else? It is a mere question of whether the tramway owners can raise the fares and that is to be the subject of a Report to the Committee by the Department. Standing Order 150 simply says:
Whenever a recommendation shall have been made in a report on a Private Bill from a Department of the Government referred to, the Committee shall notice such recommendation in their report and shall state their reasons for dissenting, should such recommendations not be agreed to.
How can it be said that that controls in the slightest degree the question whether tramways shall run up Park Lane through the Marble Arch and into the bottle-neck at Kilburn at enormous expense and great inconvenience? I venture to think that it has nothing whatever to do with it. I hope, when other Members have made clear to those not so well acquainted with London as we are, the reckless propositions contained in this Bill of going into crowded streets which are already insufficient to accommodate the traffic, that it will be unnecessary to send this Bill any further or to incur the alarming expense of hearing petitions, involving a loss of time of Parliament and of Members of the Select Committee. Let hon. Members go and see what happens at present to the cross traffic at Holborn Town Hall where Gray's Inn Road crosses Theobald's Road, and let them ask themselves, if that condition prevails to-day with all the ability of the police to regulate things, what will happen when they get to Edgware Road, Praed Street, and Chapel Street, if in that narrow thoroughfare fixed tramways are introduced? Imagine the hon. Member for Plymouth, with his luggage, going to Paddington to catch his train and being blocked at the Chapel Street end. It is too ludicrous to think of. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the Amendment and not at the moment, when a Traffic Board is intended and, we may reasonably hope, is actually in course of formation, send this Bill to a Select Committee, but to wait until the triumvirate—the Great Three—are appointed to deal with London traffic. By all means let them have the authority, but let it be an impartial body that has the authority, and do not do away with the veto, which is the only compensation and protection that the local ratepapers and local bodies have at the present moment, until you are able to ensure them the protection afforded by a superior board or tribunal.

Sir J. REMNANT: I beg to second the Amendment. Holborn, which I have the honour to represent, will be affected even more than the City of London if this Standing Order be suspended and these trams are allowed to go through our crowded street. Holborn, fortunately or unfortunately, is surrounded by all the great London termini, and it is very difficult to go from north to south or east to west without having to cross some part of Holborn. My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the Clerkenwell Road crossing near Holborn Town Hall, which is well known. He might have gone a little further west and have referred to the proposal to run the trams down the Tottenham Court Road and across New Oxford Street, where to-day there is almost as much congestion of traffic as there is in front of the Mansion House. I have been on the London County Council and served for some years with my hon. Friend (Mr. Gilbert) who seconded the Motion for suspension. During those years we had this hardy annual of the County Council tramways cropping up. We had various other annuals, such as the taking over of the City of London itself, and proposals for swamping or doing away later with the borough councils. The London County Council is anxious to take everything under its wing. It has acquired the tramways, with what success or want of success is known well to Londoners. If one may judge from the speeches we have heard to-night one would imagine that there is no other means of locomotion in London except the tramways. Tramways are all very well in their way as a means to an end, and that end we all desire, namely, to help in the promotion of easy and cheap locomotion in our great cities, but there comes a point when the tramways can bring people into London and take people out of London, but not across London. If you are going to allow these tramways to go right across London through our congested streets you will not relieve the congestion of traffic, but you well intensify it, and defeat the very object which you are so anxious to achieve.
Is there any great hurry for this London County Council scheme? We are not today under war conditions, when we had to do things which otherwise we would not do. It is a very drastic thing to ask
this House to suspend a Standing Order which was deliberately drawn up to confirm and to carry out the Tramways Act of 1872 and as a means of safeguarding the road authorities in London and elsewhere. It is a very drastic step to ask the House to suspend the Standing Order which gives a safeguard to these road authorities, when you have practically a unanimous vote against it. Fourteen out of the seventeen will not give their consent to it. One of the remaining three went so far as to give a doubtful approval to the suspension, and afterwards they passed a resolution and sent it to the right hon. Gentleman who represents them so well here asking him to vote against the suspension. I think I may fairly say that the almost unanimous opinion of the local authorities, the road authorities, who know their districts far better than the London County Council do, is that it is a drastic step to over-ride their views when Parliament has given them this safeguard, especially while we are waiting for a Traffic Board which would have to deal with all these great schemes, but deal with them as a whole. The hon. Member who moved the suspension stated that the Committee had advocated the abolition of the Standing Order, but he did not go on to say that that was provided the whole question was referred to the Traffic Board. That makes a very great difference. The chances are that if the question is referred to this impartial board the Standing Order will be suspended which gives the local veto to the road authorities; but until that Board has been established and has got to work, I do not think the hon. Member was quite fair in not giving the whole facts of the case.
I object very much to this suspension of the Standing Order. There is no hurry for it. The consequences will be great. You cannot suspend the Standing Order in a case like this, when there is such a strong case against it, without doing away with the thing altogether. I doubt very much whether the House of Commons will feel disposed to do away with a Standing Order which it has confirmed many times during recent years, without better grounds than have been urged to-night for the suspension. The question of the trams as a means of locomotion has been referred to by many speakers, and naturally the London County Council are in favour of getting
tramways wherever they can get them. They have made a hopeless failure of them so far as they have gone, with a heavy loss to the ratepayers, as anybody who understands ordinary business will appreciate, and I am afraid that by the means now proposed they are hoping to bolster up their non-paying enterprise, instead of confining themselves to their proper business, which is more that of administration than of running these ventures. Fixed tramways through our crowded and congested streets in London are obsolete. On the Thames Embankment quite recently we saw a breakdown which necessitated nearly the whole length of the tramway being blocked with trams. Picture as against that an equal number of motor-omnibuses which the London County Council seek powers to run against this block of tramcars. There can be no question that the motor-omnibus, besides employing more men, which hon. Members opposite ought to advocate, are a far better means for the working of traffic in London than fixed tram-cars running along the centre of the street. The enormous expenditure which is proposed, in view of the suspension of this Standing Order, would be a waste of money. There are other means of locomotion besides tramcars. In Tottenham Court Road we have a splendid service of motor-omnibuses, and we have the tubes and other means of getting about. I do hope the House will hesitate long before it suspends a Standing Order which is the only safeguard which the road authorities have against these sort of enterprises, which I am afraid are doomed to failure.

Major GRAY: The debate has disclosed a very remarkable position. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment (Sir H. Nield) declared, as I understand, that there would be far less objection to the removal of the veto if there existed an independent impartial tribunal before which the County Council and borough councils could each place their case. That means that the Traffic Board, as suggested by the Commission, is an impartial tribunal, and that a Select Committee of this House is not. The suggestion here is not that the County Council, being one of the parties, should decide its own case, or that the borough council, being one of the parties, should decide its own case, but that both should go to a Select
Committee of this House. The ground of cost was another string to the bow. That argument was that, if it went to a Traffic Board, there is no objection to the abolition of the veto, but with a Select Committee of the House there is an objection to the abolition of the veto. It has long been said—as far back as 1903—by one of the best authorities on Standing Orders, the best authority, that it was not just that one of the parties to a dispute should be a judge in the case. That is the position. So long as the borough councils maintain this veto they become absolute judge, because they prevent Parliament considering the Bill and coming to a decision upon the Bill on its merits. They judge the case before it comes into court, and if my hon. Friend will forgive me, and will not take it as an offence, his attitude in this matter reminds me of the mediæval criminal who clings to the rusty knocker of a church, and, in order not to be haled before the seat of justice, cries "Sanctuary!" He does not cry "Sanctuary!" but cries "Veto!" He has seized hold of the Standing Order. He hopes to shelter himself behind that rather than go to an independent tribunal where the case could be impartially tried.

Sir H. NIELD: I suppose that my hon. Friend knows that the sanctuary only lasted seven days, when you had to clear out.

Major GRAY: I hope that this Standing Order will not last seven hours, and that it may be suspended by this House in order that the case may go before the proper tribunal. It is said that enthusiasts are apt to make mistakes; I think that both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment must be enthusiasts, for I note that the Amendment objects to the suspension on the ground that it deprives each authority of the control of its roads, and provides no contribution towards the maintenance of these parts thereof that are not occupied by the tramway. But does not the tramway contribute to the local rates? It is assessed for local rates wherever it is within the borough boundary, and I am advised that last year it contributed £100,000 to local rates, which local rates may be used by the borough councils for the maintenance of the roads. The tramway authority, the County Council, have to maintain the road occupied by the tramway and 18 inches each side, but in addition they are a large
ratepayer in every one of the boroughs. My Friend (Sir J. Remnant) is an enthusiast. In seconding the Amendment he said that these tramways so far had been run in London at a great loss to the ratepayers.

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that the tramways occupy a vast proportion of the road and drive the traffic off that part of the road, and therefore add to the wear on the other part of the road?

Major GRAY: I think that the hon. Member might address that question with far greater instruction to himself to anyone of the taxicab drivers of London, or even to the drivers of motor buses, who invariably make for the tram lines, as the best kept part of the road, and keep away from the sides of the road, because they are in such a deplorable condition. The roads are bad in other districts as well as in those where there are tramways. One would imagine that the inferior character of the road was due to the accident of the tramways being there. But I want to get back, if I can, to what is the real issue here. I do not complain of the Standing Order being 50 years of age, but I do desire to point out that when it was adopted the conditions with regard to tramway construction were totally different from those of to-day. The highest authority on this matter has declared that this Standing Order was passed by this House originally to give to the local authority priority of claim in the construction of tramways. The only tramway authorities in those days were private authorities, and they were constructing tramways and running them for private gain, and I can well understand the attitude of Parliament in desiring to protect a local authority against the institution of a private company, and securing by means of the veto the right of the local authority to become the tramway authority and construct and run tramways if it so desired. It was not until some years afterwards that the London County Council became a tramway authority. I deprecate very much the tone of the speeches against this suggestion. The London County Council is not antagonistic to the borough councils.

Sir J. REMNANT: It was.

Major GRAY: It probably was in the, days when my hon. Friend was a Member. I have had the privilege of sitting there
for thirteen years and I have seen no evidence of it in that time, but I have seen many, many efforts on the part of the Council to work harmoniously with the borough councils. On this matter I do feel that it is not megalomania, as some people say, on the part of the County Council, but a real desire to grapple with part of the problem of the transport of Londoners in a very thickly populated area. We have felt constantly that our efforts in that direction were systematically impeded by the borough councils, who declared the veto often without giving to our proposals anything like thorough consideration. It was remarked a moment ago that fourteen out of seventeen borough councils had expressed disfavour. There are 29 authorities. These objecting councils are the councils who have taken up this dog-in- the-manger attitude ever since the commencement. The other borough councils have taken a larger view of London's needs and have already given their consent. There was no need to consult them. Their consent we have. The borough councils for the South of London and the East of London, where the poor live—

Sir F.HALL: Dulwich is in South London, and it is against this.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House. He must know that the other borough councils, apart from the 17, would have no locus standi, and would not be allowed to oppose the Bill.

Major GRAY: That is not the point, I was referring to a figure which was quoted a few moment ago, as though 14 of the borough councils were against and three only were in favour, and I said that 14 councils did not constitute the whole of the borough councils of London, of which there are 29. The fact that they have refrained from expressing an opinion, knowing that this was coming forward to-night, and having regard also to the attitude they have taken on other occasions, surely justifies me in claiming that the majority of those would be in favour. Perhaps I can give force to the suggestion, as it appears to me, by referring to a note which I received from the Tilbury Urban District Council. It is, I know, an authority outside London, but so is Ealing.

Sir H. NIELD: My hon. Friend forgets that this Bill travels outside London, comes into Middlesex, and is promptly vetoed by the urban district of Willesden.

Major GRAY: I have not forgotten anything of the kind. The Tilbury people write that they were circularised by the Council of Urban Districts and asked to pass a resolution moved by my hon. Friend opposite, that they had considered that circular, that they had unanimously reached the conclusion that they would not support the veto, but would advise their Member to be present to-night to vote against the continuation of the veto; that they were opposed to the Council of their organisation, and that the veto ought to be suspended in order that this Bill might go to a Committee upstairs. That is but one. I know full well the area I represent, and I have had the privilege during 17 or 18 years of representing two boroughs on the L.C.C. Hoxton is one area, and I learned something of the difficulties of transit in Shore-ditch and Brixton in the south. For six years also I was a member of one of the local authorities, and have seen the matter from their point of view, and I have reached the conclusion that the conditions relating to transit in London today are absolutely intolerable and that something must be done to get us out of this quagmire. Whether the solution is to be secured by an extension of the tramways, by motor- 'buses, by tubes, or by all in combination, I suggest that if we fail in this Resolution to-night it has at least brought nearer a settlement of this great question. If we allowed this to go by default, when are we likely to get this traffic authority for London? It has been promised for the last 15 years. Fifteen years ago a Royal Commission recommended the establishment of the authority. If we do nothing more tonight than hasten the advent of the authority, some advantage will have been gained by this Debate.
We have recently undertaken huge responsibilities with regard to the housing of the working classes in the London area. We are obliged by force of circumstances to purchase sites and erect buildings outside the area of London proper. The whole of our housing scheme will be brought to nought unless we have cheap and rapid means of bringing these people to their work from their homes. If the Minister of Health were present, I would
venture to claim his support of a proposal which will result in the extension of tramway lines to some of the areas where houses are likely to be built. Take that great scheme at Dagenham, where very shortly we shall be housing no fewer than 150,000 people—something approaching the size of three county boroughs. How are those people to be brought to their work? If, whenever we try to secure facilities for transport, we are met with this veto by some local authority, across whose area we must travel, and are told that we must wait for a Traffic Board, what can we do? We cannot wait. The problem is becoming more acute week by week. Let anyone who doubts it watch the streets of London at such a place as Blackfriars Bridge, or Liverpool Street, or the Elephant and Castle, or Victoria, at what are called the peak-load hours of the day, when the pressure of traffic is heaviest. You must not judge London traffic by what you see between 10 o clock and four. Anyone who witnesses it will realise that it is a problem the solution of which has been too long delayed, and that it requires the earnest attention of this House.
The Select Committee on Standing Orders had the power, had it chosen, to say that Standing Order 22 could not be suspended, and that the petition failed. The Standing Orders Committee did not feel justified in taking up so strong an attitude, but referred the question to this House, and if that be the order of the Standing Orders Committee, we who are supporting the proposal cannot be blamed for seeking the decision of the House on the subject. The highest authorities in this House and in the other place have declared that this Standing Order in the past has led to mischief. I ask the House in this case to suspend its operations in order that further mischief may be avoided, and that something may be done to bring our people cheaply and rapidly to their daily work.

Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I do not think very much of the dilemma on the horns of which the hon. Gentleman (Major Gray) attempted to impale my hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Nield), namely, that because my hon. and learned Friend is willing that a Standing Order should be suspended in favour of a Traffic Board, therefore he was denying that a Committee upstairs would be equally impartial. There is a very great difference
between a Traffic Board, as it has been outlined and promised, and the Select Committee upstairs. A Traffic Board would take into account and survey and arrange for the whole question of locomotion, would create, so to speak, a general ground plan for locomotion through London. The Committee upstairs would argue that it had not that task and could not attempt to exercise its functions upon such a basis. Therefore, I do not place great value on the dilemma with which the hon. Gentleman opened his speech. The hon. Member for Plymout (Sir Shirley Benn), in his opening remarks, kept impressing on the House that this was not a Motion to destroy the power of veto possessed by the borough councils. That is exactly my cause of complaint. This effort is only one of many on the part of the London County Council to encroach upon the powers of the borough councils which those bodies have been granted by Act of Parliament. Over and over again the London County Council comes to this House and endeavours to steal a little more and then more and more from the borough councils. I do not think that this House ought to permit that to be done by an ad hoc or partial claim I think the London County Council ought to have the courage of its convictions, and come before this House and say that they thought that the borough councils had too much power for the good of London, and thus face the question of taking that power away from them. When that question comes before the House, I for one, looking at the admirable work which the borough councils have performed since they were constituted, and particularly the representative part that those councils have played during the past six years of great national crisis in comparison with the London County Council, shall have something to say on the general question, and which I do not propose to say on this occasion. The principle attacked in this case of the veto is, I admit, one which the borough councils would be wiling to surrender with regard to transit if there was a satisfactory settled authority of that traffic constituted, and if they certainly, as to through traffic, had ample opportunities of being heard before such a traffic board.
Several questions have been touched upon in this Debate as to which I do not propose to enlarge. Mention has been made of the inopportune nature of this
proposal. That is perfectly obvious. The whole question was submitted to a Select Committee on transport last year and that Committee reported in favour of a Traffic Board. That report was confirmed by the Advisory Committee appointed by the Minister of Transport. The whole matter, therefore, of these tramways is pending the decision of the authority constituted by this House, and that is the moment when the London County Council chooses to barge in with these tramways all over the central area of London, and to take the whole matter out of the hands of the constitutional authority I named. With regard to the merits of the case, as to traffic, I would ask the House to allow me to say a few words. As an old Cockney myself who knows the life of London and who in the past drove with horses over all parts of it, I used to go in every direction and, therefore, I feel that I may claim to be competent to express an opinion about the traffic of London, changed as it is, by the introduction of new methods of locomotion. In 1904, I happened to be speaking in this House on this very question, and I expressed a preference, for reasons which I will indicate later, for motor buses over trams. Motor buses had then only practically come in and they appeared in a somewhat primitive and imperfect form. A right hon. friend of mine and a distinguished champion of the London County Council, Mr. John Burns, said on that occasion across the House: "Motor buses, why they are done for already."

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: So is he.

Mr. BURDETT COUTTS: It is in that spirit that the London County Council now comes to propose this obsolete method. Since that time there has been an enormous development of motor 'buses, both in their make and shape and convenience, and also in their number, and since that time also there has been the greater part of the development that has taken place in underground tube railways, and yet you would think from the proposals of the London County Council that they viewed the whole question as dependent entirely upon tramways. On that occasion I ventured to express the opinion that
the real solution of this difficult problem of London locomotion would be found to be tube railways for long distances, motor-
buses for short ones in the central area, and trams in the less crowded streets of the outer area.
10.0 P.M.
All this kind of traffic that has to cross the crowded streets of the central area, from one point on one side to another point on another side, ought to go by tube underground or by motorbuses with their flexible line of progression and their power of give and take, which is essential to the circulation of traffic in crowded streets. It is this rigid line of progression which makes the tramway utterly unsuitable to the central area of London, where the streets are crowded with all sorts of traffic and are often very narrow. In order to justify the introduction of tramlines into that area of London, I say the London County Council ought to make a new ground plan altogether and widen the whole of the streets in the central area. The blocks that take place at present in streets without trams are such as seriously to impede the whole business of London. Take first the blocks at crossings, where two lines of traffic cross. If you are in a motor bus you have to wait a minute, or two minutes, or three minutes, at each of these crossings. Now you add to that block a line of tramways going down one of those roads—a tram is an enormously long vehicle, which generally stops a tremendous lot of traffic behind it which cannot go round it—and you will make matters much worse. Then, again, take cases where you have two lines of tramways crossing each other, such as the case which has been mentioned, and with which I am familiar, the junction of Gray's Inn Road and Theobald's Road. I do not know if any hon. Member here is familiar with that place, but the block there sometimes takes ten minutes to relieve. If you are going to add trams to these blocks at crossings, I say you will make London traffic intolerable to people whose time is of value. Then take the blocks that are caused along the whole route of the trams. The distance between the tramline and the kerb is not in most cases sufficient for motor buses to pass on the left; they have to go round; they meet another line of traffic, and then you have a block on both lines, which is a very serious matter and which is constantly occurring all along the route of the trams. I will give this
further difficulty that occurs. The lateral regulation of traffic by the police, that is to say, their turning the heavy, slow traffic on to one side or the other, so as to allow the faster traffic to pass, has been a great relief to many streets in London. Of course, that is impossible now, and will be rendered still more impossible if you lay down trams with their rigid line of progression in any more streets than at present. You will find that Police Regulations sending slow and heavy traffic on one side is not possible in any streets where there are trams at present. To increase that inconvenience would be a serious injury to London traffic.
I wish to say one word about the allegation or suggestion that is sometimes made that the opposition to this Motion to-night is in any sense a "class" matter. I do not look upon it as such. I do not view it from that point of view at all. I remember that in the days of the Bridges that allegation was often made. They said that people who drove their own horses would not want to be bothered with traffic. I do not drive horses any more and I do not drive a motor. I do not like motors. I only go in a motor for the purpose of getting anywhere, and it is not my desire to say anything on a subject of this sort which would facilitate the owner of a private motor enjoying Better travelling. Nor do I speak for those who do not want the residential quarters in which they live and the fashionable shopping streets to be invaded by the tram. I look upon this question from the broad view of the general interests of the traffic in London—London, which is not only the capital of the Empire and of the Nation, but is the entrepôt of all the business and commerce of the world to which, in the matter of locomotion, time is of the essence of the contract between all men and their affairs, and I say that, unless this House look upon this question from that broader point of view, unless they dismiss from their minds the idea that any particular section of the community ought to be considered before the rest, they will never arrive at a just and proper solution of this question. I would only point out—and it seems to me to illustrate the anachronism insisted upon by the London County Council in these trams—that more or less the same class of people travel in trams and in motor 'buses. Trams
are the greatest possible obstruction to the easy and quick passage of motor 'buses. Now I ask why everything should be given to those people who go in trams, and this material injury should be done to the people who go in motor 'buses? To my mind, there is no reason at all, except that the London County Council have got a bee in their bonnet on the subject.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): It will probably meet the general convenience of the House if at this stage I make such observations as the Minister of Transport desires to put before the House before coming to a conclusion.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Where is he?

Mr. NEAL: It has not been an easy matter to determining what our advice should be. I think it will be abundantly clear to hon. Members who have followed this very interesting Debate from the beginning, that the Standing Orders Committee adopted a wise course in leaving this question to the decision of the House itself. May I say at once that, although before I sit down I shall give definite advice to the House, it is not the intention of the Government to interfere with a perfectly free vote upon this matter.
In order to follow this question from its inception it is necessary to go back to the Tramways Act of 1870, at a time when tramway undertakings were in their infancy, and when practically there were no tramways being run or measures promoted by local authorities; when there were a certain number of private adventure companies applying to Parliament for Bills. In the year 1870 an Act was passed empowering the Board of Trade to issue Provisional Orders for the establishment of tramways. It is quite true that that Act did provide for the possibility of local authorities establishing their own tramways. But the problem certainly at that time was much more a question of private companies seeking Parliamentary power for the purpose of putting tramways upon public roads. I think anyone who reads the Act carefully will come to the conclusion that the main object of that Statute was to safeguard the interests of road authorities in the matter of the upkeep of their roads, to prevent them being unduly interfered with and broken up, and to
provide for their proper maintenance. With that view, in Sections (4) and (5) of that Act, there were provisions whereby the local authorities whose roads had been interfered with had a power of veto vested in them. That is to say, they could paralyse the action of the Board of Trade in granting Provisional Orders, the only difference being that where two-thirds of the local authorities through which the tramways pass consent, the Board of Trade may proceed with their inquiry and issue their Provisional Order. At that time the authorities for London were named in the Schedule of the Bill as the City of London, the Corporation, which was the local authority, and had power given to it both of making its own tramway, if that had been possible—it is practically impossible owing to the traffic position in the city—and also for the City of London, the Corporation was the authority who had the right of veto in so far as that district was concerned.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the London County Council desire to do what the hon. Gentleman had just said is impossible—take tramways into the city?

Mr. NEAL: I will deal with that later. I have in mind the proposed tramways in this Bill which at one point come into the jurisdiction of the City. For the Greater Metropolis the Metropolitan Board of Works was named the authority. The effect of subsequent legislation is that the tramway authority for Greater London is the County Council, and the vetoing authorities are the London borough councils. That creates an anomalous position, because the giving to a public body of certain duties or certain rights which in themselves connote certain duties, and at the same time provide that some other body may have an arbitrary veto on their exercise of those duties, is to create a position which is not quite a reasonable proposition, and put both sets of authorities in the greatest difficulties. So far as the tramway authority themselves, in this case the County Council, are concerned, when they are considering how they shall exercise the powers given to them, we have to, remember that they are the authority whose duty it is to take a survey of the tramway situation of the whole metropolis. It is true they can exercise powers before they get them from Parliament and they are in the difficulty of the veto which
is set up by Act of Parliament, and by the Standing Orders.
The point I was endeavouring to make is that it puts the County Council in a very peculiar position. They are the local body which has the duty placed upon it of surveying the position and making proposals, and at the same time the other local authorities are given the right of vetoing those proposals. That being the legal position, what is the history of the recommendations that have been made by the public bodies who have considered this matter? There has been already more than once the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1905, and I do not propose to read it again. I hope I do not unfairly summarise it when I say that it was not only a definite recommendation against the continuance of the veto, but also a definite recommendation that the local authorities themselves should have a preferential right to make their own tramways within their own district, if that course were convenient and commended itself to Parliament. The Select Committee on London Traffic in 1913 reported as follows:
 An extreme use of the veto in this way goes beyond the purpose for which it was intended. The veto was granted to local authorities to prevent them being harassed with speculative schemes promoted by private interests, and it was not then contemplated that there would be a central municipal authority which would become the sole tramway promoters in London. The Standing Order was made to secure that the local authorities should be consulted before private tramway schemes were submitted to Parliament. Now the London County Council has entire control in the County of London, and the same is no longer necessary to safeguard public interests, but some measure is required to ensure that local opinion has duo weight given to it.
I hope we shall be able to find some way of meeting both sides. The Report of the Committee published a few weeks ago—a Committee which was presided over by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Kennedy Jones) approved of the abolition of the absolute veto, and suggested in its place the setting up of a central London authority without the power to veto, but whose business it should be to give a preliminary investigation to Bills affecting traffic, and to report to Parliament upon those lines. That has teen made abundantly clear by the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts). The Report says that,
Borough councils would be willing to be relieved of this veto if a Central Board were set up, and they had a full opportunity of being heard by that Board.
What is the position then with reference to a Central Traffic Board? The Report has only been presented a very short time. It has already been made the subject of a memorandum by the Minister of Transport to the Cabinet. It is hoped that the Cabinet may be able to come to an early conclusion upon that matter. When that conclusion is arrived at, it will be necessary that there should be Statutory Powers obtained before that Central Traffic Board can be established. It would be somewhat a sanguine thing to hope that Parliament would have time in the present Session to deal with the necessary Bill. I should be very glad if it were found possible for that to be done, but after the Bill had become an Act there still would be the setting up of the Board and its staff and there would be a substantial period in which that Board must take not a view only of the tramway situation, but must consider with great care the cogent arguments put forward to-night by many hon. Members as to the class of traffic which is desirable in the Metropolis. They would have to consider how far and in what direction it was desirable to extend the underground system, and then would arise the question whether that could be done by means of existing private companies, or whether there would have to be some public enterprise, and, in any case, where there would have to be an expenditure of public money. They would have to consider the motor bus system. They would have to take into their purview the point thrown by the hon. Member for Ealing, as to how far it was possible to adapt the existing system to any part of London, and I venture to say that, before the Board could come to a conclusion which it could recommend to Parliament for Statutory Powers, and before the necessary arrangements could be made for promoting and financing a scheme, a number of years might very well pass by.

Sir J. REMNANT: Apparently the question is so difficult, according to what the hon Gentleman says, to settle, that I must ask: Why rush it now?

Mr. NEAL: Because the problem is with us to-day, and it is a problem of the greatest importance. It is a problem which is affecting not only the country
and the convenience of the inhabitants of the great Metropolis—

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the Government are in favour of this?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will listen to the speech he will be able to form an opinion.

Mr. NEAL: I hope to make it abundantly clear to my hon. Friend, before I finish, exactly what the view of the Government is, but I am trying, if I may, to deal with this matter on lines of settled policy, and not partially, and to deal with the views that have been taken by both sides. If time were not pressing, one would very much welcome the opportunity of waiting for the setting up of a Central Traffic Board and the careful development of a complete scheme for London transport; but the question is pressing. As I was saying, it is not simply a matter of the convenience of the population, but it is ultimately a question of the housing of the population. The London County Council and other bodies are desirous of pressing forward their housing schemes, and an essential of housing schemes is that there shall be transport facilities for the people. It may be that some of those facilities may come from the railways, or it may be that the railways are already so congested that they can do little more than they are doing at present. It may be that tubes are the solution in some places. But the London County Council, which is the body set up by Parliament with the responsibility of looking at one aspect of this matter—the tramway aspect—does come to this House and say, on its responsibility, that it is making a proposal to solve this particular problem. That is the position, and in these circumstances, what is the duty of the Minister of Transport? [An HON. MEMBER: "To be here."] Ought the Minister of Transport to ask this House to refuse so much as a Second Beading to a Bill which is put forward with the authority of the London County Council? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is not the view which he takes. It is that this matter is too serious, that the problem is so urgent.

Mr. BILLING: That it is not worth his while to come down to the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Hertford not to keep interrupting. A constant fire of interruptions makes it impossible for speakers to continue their arguments. The hon. Gentleman complains about being interrupted himself, and he should allow others to proceed without interruption.

Mr. BILLING: I desire to express my regret, Mr. Speaker, at having allowed myself to interrupt the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. NEAL: The Minister of Transport does not think he ought to advise the House to refuse so much as a Second Reading to a Bill brought forward on the authority of the statutory tramway authority for Greater London, but that he ought to endeavour, if he can, in some way to meet the views of the Metropolitan Boroughs as expressed by hon. Members to-night. Is there any way in which that can be done? This Bill deals with some sixteen major tramway schemes and one or two subsidiary tramway schemes and one or two subsidiary tramway schemes. The Minister of Transport would propose, if the Standing Order were suspended and the House later gave a Second Reading to this Bill, to make a special Report to the Select Committee which will be set up to deal with the matter. He would propose to deal specially in that Report with any of the matters which were put before him by the boroughs concerned, and it would be open to the Committee which was charged with the inquiry into the Bill to ask for the advice and assistance of the Ministry of Transport upon any part of that Bill. If we were here discussing the merits of some of these schemes, they are not schemes which commend themselves, as at present advised, to the Ministry of Transport. May I deal with the case where it is proposed that a tramway should run into the boundaries of the City and, I think, across Ludgate Circus? That is not a case which would commend itself to the judgment of the Minister, and he would not be likely to advise favourably to it. There are other schemes in this long list of tramway undertakings which the Minister of Transport, as at present advised, would not see his way to submit favourably to the consideration of a Committee. But there are some which seem to him to have within them possibilities of helping to a solution of this difficult and urgent problem. If the House to-night declines to give sanction to the raising of the
Standing Orders all the tramway powers of this Bill disappear, the good with the bad. It would be very much better if to-day we had an authority, either the one suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Kennedy Jones) or some other form of authority which should take a preliminary view of the matter and so save expense, but there is so much authority, and I therefore invite the House not wholly to reject the Bill, but to suspend the Standing Orders for the purpose. Against that it may be said it involves a substantial expenditure of public money. That is not without its weight. One appreciates that it is a misfortune that there should be so large an expenditure of public money upon dealing with schemes of this description, if it could be avoided, but really the traffic of London presents a problem of such vast importance that the consideration of the amount which may be expended in promoting and passing this Bill is not sufficient, in the judgment of the Minister, to justify him in asking the House to refuse consideration.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has told us what happened in 1872, and he said at that time, tramways being in their infancy and there being no county or borough council in existence, local authorities, who were the road authorities, were given certain powers of veto. In 1888, when the London County Council and the borough councils were constituted, no alteration was made in the Standing Order, but these county and borough councils were left in exactly the same position as they were before, and, therefore, it is evident that when the London County Council was constituted it was intended that the borough councils should preserve that right which had been granted to road authorities in 1872. The hon. Member (Mr. Gilbert) suggested that every road authority in the country towns had this authority, but London is not a country town, but a conglomeration of different towns with different interests and different authorities. You cannot compare London with Bristol or any other country town. It is a different thing altogether. After all, the Corporation of London is an older authority than the London County Council, and the City of London, whose streets are going to be, or may be, infringed if this Standing
Order be suspended, are unanimously opposed to its suspension.
The hon. Gentleman says that the London County Council are such a great authority that you cannot with safety oppose any recommendations which they may make. Are the London County Council such a great authority on traffic matters? Those of us who have been for some time in this House remember that the London County Council said that the one thing to prevent congestion in the streets of London was to establish a service on the river to be continued all the year round. When some of us ventured to say that the steamboats established by private people had failed, we were told that they were going to do something quite different. They were going to have nice warm steamers during the winter. I opposed that proposal on the ground that it was only a waste of money. Who was right? After the London County Council had wasted £300,000 or £500,000 of the ratepayers' money on their precious fad, they had to abandon it. The London County Council started tramways at a time when I admit they were a mode of locomotion which apparently was going to be successful, but matters have changed, and now we have motor omnibuses which are far superior to tramways in every way. If you want to cause congestion in a street, whether broad or narrow, put down two lines of tramways. Everyone who has driven himself knows what happens. On the near side you find a cart delivering goods. A tram pulls up in front of you. You cannot go to the near side, and you cannot go to the off side, because there is another tram coming. There is plenty of room on the off side, but the tram cannot move out of the way, and the whole street is blocked. That is a fact which nobody can get over.
The conclusion we draw, and I venture to say the right conclusion, is that municipal enterprise has failed in a direction in which it will always fail. They have taken up a certain thing, and probably at the time they were right in taking it up, but it has been improved upon, and it ought to be scrapped. If it had been in the hands of private people, it would have been scrapped. The hon. Member would have come down and said: "Are we to protect the interests of shareholders who have invested their money in something which is now obsolete. The interests of
the public must be preserved, and we must have motor omnibuses, which are far better than tramways." But because it is the London County Council who have made a mistake and have invested their money in a bad enterprise, or one that has become obsolete, and because they have foolishly tried to bolster up a decaying enterprise by spending not their own money but the ratepayers' money, thus throwing good money after bad, we are asked to suspend the Standing Orders. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will make recommendations to the Committee. I believe a Standing Order has been quoted. The Standing Order says that the Minister may make a recommendation to the Committee, that the Committee may consider it and, having considered it, the Committee shall make a report to the House stating what they have done. The Committee have always to report to the House. When a private Bill has had a Second Reading in this House it goes upstairs, and when the Committee have made up their mind the Bill comes to this House on report, and the only difference is that there is a special report saying what the Committee has done. What earthly protection will that be? Money will be wasted. It is not a certainty that the Committee will carry out the recommendations of the Minister of Transport. There is no obligation on them to do so. Committees upstairs attach great importance to any recommendation made to them by a Minister, but they are not bound to carry it out. After hearing the weight of evidence they may come to the conclusion that the Minister is wrong. With all due deference to the Ministry of Transport, I am not sure that sometimes they do not make mistakes, and if by any misfortune the Ministry of Transport make a mistake in giving the wrong recommendation to the Committee and the Committee carry it out, where are we? There has been reference to congested traffic. It seems to me that the suspension of this Standing Order will further congest the traffic. If there is any scheme which is necessary in connection with the building of houses, the proper thing for the London County Council to do is to bring forward a proposal dealing with that particular object. If they have so many houses in a particular district and they want to bring people to London, let them see whether they can get by tube, or
motor omnibus. There is no necessity to put a tramway route across London to do that. In view of the fact that the vast majority of these local authorities, who were constituted by Parliament long after the Standing Order of 1872, are opposed to this suspension, I hope the House will insist upon the Standing Orders being maintained.

Sir W. DAVISON:: The statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that it is no longer reasonable for the borough councils of London to retain the power of veto which has been given them by Parliament has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury). There is one further reason which entitles these borough councils to have had this veto placed in their hands. The London County Council, when constituted as the tramway authority by Act of Parliament, was not constituted as the traffic authority of London for the reason that they had an interest as an undertaker of tramways. The borough councils were given the road veto because they had no interests as undertakers, and are only concerned with the interests of the inhabitants who dwell within their borders. Therefore it was the judicial and proper thing to give people who had no interest as undertakers the power of veto. It is not right to make people the traffic authority and invest them with the power of saying what means of traffic there shall be undertaken in any area if they have a direct monetary interest in the success of one particular form of traffic.
The statement that only 14 of the 29 boroughs of London have petitioned against this Bill is apt to mislead the House. Only 17 borough councils are affected by this Bill and would have any right to petition against it, and of these 17 the enormous majority of 14 have petitioned against it. I trust, therefore, that the House will not be prepared to suspend its Standing Orders in order to allow this very ambitious scheme of the London County Council to proceed. I think that Standing Order 22 was set up by this House for good reason, and should not be suspended unless the House is fully convinced that the public interest is likely to be prejudiced by not doing so. It is not only Kensington and Westminster and the City—rich boroughs—which are oppos
ing this Bill, but, for example, Southwark, the borough which my hon. Friend in this case inadequately represents is petitioning against the Bill. So also are East Ham, West Ham, Enfield, Leyton. There are no fewer than 80 petitions against this Bill.
We are sometimes told that boroughs like Kensington and Westminster, for their own selfish ends, to protect their aristocratic residents, or high-class shop-keepers, will not permit the noise and' inconvenience of having tramways passing through their confines, and are thereby hindering the suburbs from getting into and out of the centre of London. But it is not only these boroughs which I have indicated which have petitioned against the Bill, but places like Twickenham, Richmond, the Maidens, Acton, Teddington, Croydon, Kingston, Chiswick, Ealing, Hanwell, Harrow, Wimbledon, Tottenham, Penge, Beckenham, and many other places, the outlying parts, are all petitioning against this Bill. In addition, we have the great county councils of the outlying counties, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Essex, Kent and Middlesex petitioning against the Bill. If any ground has been disclosed to show that the Standing Orders are against the interests of all these varieties of residents in these great areas I am at a loss to understand what it is. Imagine tramways in Farringdon Street, in Edgware Road, in Charing Cross Road, in Shaftesbury Avenue and in Notting Hill Gate. I go through Notting Hill Gate several times a day, and often have very nearly been killed owing to the congestion of traffic. It has been said that if this Order is not suspended housing schemes in the outer parts of London will be held up. What nonsense that is! All these outside authorities have housing schemes. Would they petition against the Bill if they thought such a petition would interfere with their schemes? The Bill would block the whole traffic of London getting out to the suburbs except those who can go by tubes. It would be a case of confusion worse confounded.
I associate myself entirely with the statement that the tram is an obsolete vehicle. It is all very well in country districts, but in towns, where large numbers of people have to get rapidly to and fro, it is an obstruction which should no longer be tolerated. The Highways. Committee of the London County Council
estimates that in the coming year, 1920–21, the tramways will involve London in a loss of no less than £450,000. Are you going to continue and add to the loss? You have seen in to-day's papers that the London County Council has appealed to the people of London for a loan of £7,000,000 for housing. They were able to get only £1,000,000. Yet you are now asked to allow the London County Council to apply for a further loan of £5,000,000 for tramways. Is it not very much better to concentrate on getting money for houses? Kensington and other places are prevented from proceeding with their housing schemes because they cannot get the money. The London County Council, as has been said, has an octopus hand. It is always trying to seize hold of powers. As originally proposed, the Bill authorised local authorities to obtain money for housing in London, but the London County Council interfered and said they must be the authority for raising money. They cannot get the money and the boroughs are being held up with their housing schemes. You make that far worse if you authorise the London County Council to get this absurd extension of tramways and to borrow another £5,000,000 of money for the purpose. We cannot afford it.

Mr. BOWERMAN: When the citizens of London to-morrow read the Report of this Debate, they will readily appreciate the fact that the opposition in the main comes from those who favour private enterprise as against municipal enterprise, and that some of the opponents of the suspension of the Standing Order are the same hon. Members who opposed the bringing of the tramcars over the bridges a few years ago. No measure has given more delight, shall I say, to thousands and thousands of our working people than the fact that that opposition was eventually broken down and that they were enabled to travel across the bridges in comfort. I am personally delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport is in favour of the suspension of this Order. When Members of the House say that the tramway system is derelict they are saying that which they cannot substantiate. They are attacking a form of progression in London which is more popular year after year; certainly so far as the working people are concerned. The working
people of London want to see their municipal tramway system extended. I am very sorry to find opposition coming from those—I must not say they are interested in private enterprise, but on any and every occasion the same hon. Members rise in order to defend private enterprise as against public enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: No, No!] I do hope that the House will follow the advice given to them by the Parliamentary Secretary and vote for the suspension of this Order.

Mr. BILLING: I think some hon. Members misunderstand the position of the Parliamentary Secretary, which is to support the policy of the tramways in London. That is supported by the policy of the Budget which is to tax motor 'buses practically out of existence. I do not see any increase in the burdens put on the tramways and we can, I think, assume that the tramway is the pet child of the present Ministry. Anyone who has used the London streets, as I have for the last fifteen years as a driver myself, must know the respective value of the two means of locomotion. That has been dealt with at great length. The greater portion of the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was to elaborate the intense importance of this matter and in that he was right. Without desiring to be offensive, may I say that that was the only thing he said in his speech which had the full support of the House?

Sir F. BANBURY: rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. BILLING: If that is the case why is not the Minister of Transport here? Surely if the matter is so important it was his business to be here.

Sir SHIRLEY BENN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question"

The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 129.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[11.2 p.m.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hayday, Arthur
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Simm, M. T.


Bromfield, William
Irving, Dan
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kiley, James D.
Stanton, Charles B.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clithnroe)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sutherland, Sir William


Dawes, James Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Swan, J. E.


Edge, Captain William
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mitchell, William Lane
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir 0. (Anglesey)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Glanville, Harold James
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Nail, Major Joseph
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Neal, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Parker, James
Sir Shirley Benn and Mr. Gilbert.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hancock, John George
Royce, William Stapleton



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Foreman, Henry
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Forestier-Walker, L.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forrest, Walter
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Barnston, Major Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rankin, Captain James S.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Reid. D. D.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Remer, J. R.


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Renwick, George


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Blair, Major Reginald
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hood, Joseph
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bruton, Sir James
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurd, Percy A.
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Burdett-Coutts, William
Jameson, J. Gordon
Steel Major S. Strang


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.




Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jesson, C.
Stewart, Gershom


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sugden, W. H.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Johnson, L. S.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Joynson-Hicks Sir William
Talbot, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


 Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Kino Commander Henry Douglas
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Coats, Sir Stuart Cockerill,
Lloyd, George Butler
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Brigadier-General G. K.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Vickers, Douglas


Colvin, Brig.-General
Lynn, R. J.
Waddington, R.


Cope, Major Wm.
Macmaster, Donald
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Macquistcn, F. A.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Edgar, Clifford B.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Nicholi, Commander Sir Edward
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Younger, Sir George


Falcon, Captain Michael
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)



Fell, Sir Arthur
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fildes, Henry
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Sir H. Neild and Sir J. Remnant.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM [EXPENSES].

Resolution reported,

" That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the management of the Imperial War Museum
and for other purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Trustees of the Imperial War Museum in carrying the Act into effect, including any salaries or remuneration paid to the Director-General and the Curator of the Museum, and to any officers of the Trustees."

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[ Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

INVERGORDON HARBOUR (TRANSFER) [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of confirming an agreement entered into by the Admiralty for the acquisition of a harbour at Invergordon, and certain properties, rights, and powers in connection therewith (King's Recommendation signified) To- morrow.—[ Lord E. Talbot.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

Mr. STANTON: Recently, at question time, I raised a question in regard to the payment of Members' salaries. The Leader of the House said that he did not think there was any general desire that the matter should be dealt with. That may be so, and I am delighted to discover that there are so many Members in the fortunate position that really a question of a few hundreds a year is nothing to them. I have reason, however, to believe that there are Members, however well-to- do, who still observe the principle of equity in regard to their less fortunate comrades in the House. It is not really a matter exactly how much is the salary, for everyone realises the position at a time like this with the Budget that has been brought forward, and in view of the cost of living and various other troubles
before us. But someone ought to speak out, and I am sure that I am merely voicing the opinion of other Members who have discovered, as I have long ago, the difficulty of remaining silent. Therefore, we dare, like Oliver, to ask for more I am not shy. My constituents, judging from the majority they were good enough—may I say wise enough—to give me—not because of my abilities—consider apparently that I am a fit and proper person to represent them here. They demand the right to live and to have a fair living wage so I dare claim the right to a fair living wage. As a Member of this House I have not got it. My train fares, hotel bills, and double house ex-penses—here and in my constituency—add to my burden, and must add to the burdens of many hon. Members. Apart from that, I wonder why we, who boast of being the Mother of Parliaments, the greatest House of Legislation in the world, should act differently to the Legislatures of France, Switzerland, even dirty Germany, all parts of America, and our Overseas Dominions. Members of Parliament should at least be worthy of their hire. We are trying to touch the conscience of the Government. Why should we pander to the lowest instincts of the mob because certain hon. Members well-to-do can afford to throw back their £400 a year? Some of them do that, and they can afford it, and they do it in a very generous spirit, because they are making money in other ways. I only wish I could afford to do the same thing. They still have an opportunity of doing this themselves, but why should they begrudge people like me, who have no other source of income, what I am asking for. It has been put to me that this £400 a year was never intended as payment of Members, but simply something towards expenses. Call a rose by any other name, we still know what it means. What does it mean? Some of the Sunday papers say, "£400 a year! "I wonder what the man who writes that is getting for his spare moments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask Churchill!"] When £400 a year meant £400 a year there was a chance of rubbing through on that by lying and scheming a bit, but to-day you cannot do; that. I think we have been about the most modest of the bunch up to now. I have had a number of letters twitting me in regard to my attitude towards the
fighting boys. I am sure those who believed in winning the War will not be unmindful of the claims of those boys, and I am willing to climb down even now in order to put those boys right.
If you are going to have cheap, shoddy labour you will have cheap and shoddy work done. People will not give their best attention to the work of this House when you know they cannot afford to come here. Men who cannot afford to pay their tram fares or hotel bills discover that they have to do something else to earn a livelihood. If a man gives the best part of his time to the affairs of the nation surely he is entitled to something for doing that. It is said that Ministers who get £5,000 a year may be capable of earning ten times as much in the commercial world, and that may be so. They may be making some sacrifice, but I think it comes with ill-grace from them when they say it is not the desire of the House to do what I am asking for. I think a Member of this House ought to have more than £400 a year, which now means less than £200 a year. If I were a collier in Wales I could, I think, with my knowledge of the work, make as much and be better off at the end of the year than I am now. I am merely submitting that I think it would be only fair if the Government would give this matter really honest consideration, and, if they want to economise, good heavens! there are any number of Departments where that can be done without trying to do it by profiteering at the expense of Members of this House. Some of us in the old days were told that if £400 a year were granted, it would be a temptation to everyone to try to get into the House of Commons. But the trade unions of the country are wealthy and powerful, and are determined to "run' their own Members. Some of their Members are already subsidised to the extent of more than one-half of what they are receiving from the Government, and they also get their railway fares. That is the case in numerous instances. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It will, at any rate, be very shortly. I do know that a few hundreds a year have been added to the salaries of the representatives of certain trade unions, who also get their railway passes. If that is done the people who used to be nervous about
this being an abused privilege—well, they can leave it at that. So far as the trade unions are concerned they have the power and the money to run their own members. Why should we be forced to blackleg one another in this House? All my sympathies are with Labour. My work has been on the Labour side all my life. The only quarrel I had with my friends on the Labour Benches was during the War, and the only quarrel I have with them now is in regard to their Bolshevik tendencies. I claim that I am free and independent, and as long as I can afford to be so I shall so continue. But there comes a breaking point, and if I find I cannot so continue as a Member of Parliament, I shall go outside and discover other means of gaining a living, as other people have done. I am appealing to the Government to be fair with us. We know they have not done all they could in regard to economising. Some of us have worked for them during the War, have stood by them, have been jeered at and howled down by old-time comrades. We have suffered all these sacrifices and humiliations, and not even an O.B.E. has come our way. I feel it is only a question of initiating this movement to gain success. More than 150 Members have promised, irrespective of their position, to support me, and I shall rely on them to get justice done. We do not want to be blacklegging each other. We are worth as much as the Members of any other Parliament in the world, and I do not think we are asking too much. I have not stated any figure. I leave it to the conscience of those who are responsible to do that, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find means to treat Members of this House on more generous terms, and make those terms at least equivalent to what was intended to be given when £400 a year was decided upon.

Lieut.-Colonel JOHN WARD: There are two ways of looking at this subject. A certain section of the House in the old days when this matter was first discussed considered that it was impossible for a man to receive a salary as M.P. without there being some corrupt influence so far as the Government was concerned. I came into this House an absolutely poor man, earning about 35s. per week. I stood on the floor within a few months, and a good friend,
who represents a powerful organisation, supported me, to defend the right of a Member working here for the general good of the community, to be in a position to keep himself in the ordinary standard of life which he ought to occupy. It was alleged that that would bring all sorts of corrupt influences to bear, but experience and common sense applied to this subject for a moment will illustrate that, if a man is poor, starving, and yet an elected representative of the country, there is infinitely more incentive to that man to be corrupt than if he had a decent stipend to make him independent of such considerations. It is all very well if this was an aristocratic Parliament. If it was understood that only those who can afford to keep themselves ought to be elected, then you would limit at once the right of selection for the constituencies. If this is to be merely a rich man's House, for those only who can keep themselves in the ordinary standard of comfort that they ought to occupy in a place like this, then the whole of the poor men are excluded immediately. Unless this House forces the question, unless those who are wealthy will support their poorer brethren, nothing will be done. It was not done
in the old days and they do not intend to do anything now, and it is a disgrace considering the rise in the cost of living, considering the general alteration in the standard of national and economic values that this War has produced that men should come to this House and legis late, giving the best of their services and their counsel for a wage less than I get for some of my own men. If you get a powerful organisation behind you that can make up your salary to £1,000 a year you are all right, but if you will not bow to that dictation a poor man has to go out of the House, and therefore I am going to raise my voice in defence of the Motion. So far as the country and this House are concerned, it should be absolutely free to choose any man it thinks capable of voicing its opinion in this House, being certain that mere social and economic position does not preclude him from giving his best services without any form of corruption.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven of the Clock.